Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

11.5 a.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North) rose—

The Chairman: I understand that the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise a number of points. If he could indicate the numbers of the Clauses it would help me to put the rest of them quickly.

Mr. McNamara: Thank you, Sir Robert. Is it your intention to take the Third Reading today, as there is an effective blocking Motion to Third Reading?

The Chairman: That will depend on the wish of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: Yes, I shall certainly move the Third Reading today.

Mr. McNamara: In that case, I think most of the points can be more easily and conveniently made to the House on the Third Reading.

The Chairman: Very well.

Clauses 1 to 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill

Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

11.6 a.m.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am extremely grateful to the House for giving me the Clauses so easily. This is a somewhat complicated Bill and many small points arise. I should like to explain, as we did not have a Second Reading debate, that it is essentially a modernisation and consolidation Measure. The Bledisloe Committee, which reported 10 years ago, went carefully into the position of freshwater fisheries and made no fewer than 151 recommendations. Five of these recommendations have already been implemented. This modest Bill seeks only to implement another 30. It has been my purpose to leave out anything of controversy.
The Bill has been discussed with all the interests over a term of years since the Bledisloe Committee reported. There has been a surprising degree of unanimity between the interests concerned. First there are the anglers, of whom the so-called coarse fishermen are by far the greater number. They have been estimated at about two million—it has been recognised as the greatest participation sport in this country—and they are in agreement with the terms of the Bill. The game fishermen are also favourable. It is noticeable that many of the fishing clubs tend to combine coarse fishing with a certain amount of trout fishing, which I hope will be extended.
I should stress that this is only a small beginning in what is needed for the fishermen, particularly regarding the suppression of pollution. Far more rivers and waterways could be made available to fishermen if only pollution could be tackled successfully. A feature of the Bill is that it increases the penalties for the pollution of rivers.
However, the Bill is only a start in that direction and in helping the angler. I therefore hope that it will be followed by other measures, some of them perhaps more controversial, which will provide a new charter for the fishermen, who are so numerous and of all ages. The Bill provides that old-age pensioners and boys can be excused from the need to hold licences or that they need have them only at a reduced rate. It also provides that full licences need not be exacted by the river authority in the case of


matches or visits by parties of angling clubs; a blanket licence can cover the situation. Fishing licences are fairly expensive, and it is not reasonable that anglers, when going to different waters to fish for one day, which I hope will happen increasingly, should be obliged to pay the full rate.
Not only anglers but commercial nets-men are affected by the Bill, and I have endeavoured to meet their wishes as fully as possible. Only yesterday I received a letter from the National Netsmen's Association, which I hope I have satisfied in every respect, saying that there were two points on which it was not entirely satisfied. I am prepared to look at them and to advise accordingly whoever takes over the Bill in another place. I think that the association's fears are groundless, but I should like to carry it with me completely. It is unhappy about the word "material" in Clause 5, but I am advised that it does not alter the present position. It is also a little worried about the proposed abolition of maxima at a later stage of the Bill. The object of the Bill is to give river authorities very much wider powers without the need for so much reference to the Minister.
The river authorities will be succeeded quite soon by very much larger regional water boards on which, I am assured, the fishing interests will have every consideration. The Bill will apply to them in the same way as it applies to the river authorities in the first instance. The river authorities are the third class of people who are much affected by the Bill. It was only after extensive consultation with them that the Bill was framed. I cannot pretend that there were not one or two points which they would have liked to see included in the Bill, but the reason for their not being excluded is merely to keep controversy out of the Bill.
Perhaps one of the more controversial matters about which it has been difficult to reach complete agreement concerns the close season. There is no controversy about the close season for game fish, and the variation from one part of the country to another will remain. There is, however, a bit of a conundrum about rainbow trout because, as far as is known, they hardly ever breed in this country. Consequently they have not been sub-

jected to a close season because no one knew when to fix it. Power over rainbow trout will be delegated to the river authorities. There are two schools of thought about whether there should be a close season for coarse fishing. Opinion is evenly divided, with the majority thinking that there should not be a close season, for the obvious reason that coarse fish, when caught, are kept in a net and then returned to the river.
I know that those in areas which wish to continue with a close season are anxious that they may not be allowed to do so, but I do not think they need have any fear because it will be a fairly difficult procedure for any river authority to do away with the close season altogether. First, authorities have to make a draft order. Secondly, that order will be subject to a local inquiry. Thirdly, the matter will go to the Minister for his approval. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who takes great interest in the Bill, will ensure at that stage that if there are objections authority will not be given to do away with the close season.
One of my hon. Friends who is not present has had some anxiety about the question of possible disturbance to wildfowl nesting if the close season is done away with. There would be more people on the river bank between March and June. But game fishermen are already present on the river bank at that time. Therefore, the point can be exaggerated.
There are many other things which could be said about the Bill, and I expect that hon. Members will wish to raise a few points of detail. I have voluminous notes about the somewhat intricate provisions of the Bill, including the legal provisions. I believe the Bill to be fair, It has been very carefully considered. But I stress again that I regard it only as the first step in a charter for fishermen in England and Wales. The Scottish fishermen will be looked after as a result of the implementation of the Hunter Report, which we expect to see next year. That fact has been borne in mind in framing the Bill.
I hope that the Bill will be the first step in bringing the law up to date. We have been waiting since 1923 for modernisation and consolidation of the law. It should now be possible to move forward


to make further provision to help anglers of all kinds in England and Wales.

11.17 a.m.

Mr. McNamara: The House is indebted to the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) for introducing the Bill, which has been needed for many years. It is regrettable that so few hon. Members are present to discuss it because, apart from its important provisions for commercial fishermen, it goes towards establishing a charter for amateur sportsmen and anglers. Many people indulge in this sport; in fact, as the hon. Gentleman says, it is the most active participant sport in the country. I was, therefore, glad when the blocking Motion was tabled to enable us to discuss the Bill because it is of major importance, and it would have been a discourtesy to many of our constituents had we allowed such an important Measure to go through on the nod.
It was the Labour Government which recognised the importance of angling as a national sport when in 1966 they formed the National Angling Council, which is under the umbrella of the Sports Council of Great Britain. The House will be aware that the National Angling Council delegated to the National Association of Anglers and the Salmon and Trout Association the task of examining the Bill. While, obviously, there will be disagreements on minor points of detail, the Bill has the support of both sporting associations.
An Amendment was tabled earlier pointing to some of the difficulties and confusions under the Bill; though it was not proceeded with. This demonstrates more than anything else a lack of knowledge in this country about fish, their environment and their breeding habits. The hon. Member for Dorset, West said that rainbow trout did not breed in this country. However, the Bledisloe Committee reported that there were several areas in which it did breed.
This question is open to further investigation and it brings me to the first major point I wish to make, which is that we do not know sufficient about this report. It was estimated in 1970 that there were 2,800,000 active anglers in Britain and that by 1980 there would be 3,250,000. It is believed that they spend about £160 million a year on their sport, albeit mostly

on travelling, which means that a lot goes in petrol tax. In view of the numbers and the amount they spend, more research should be conducted into this sport and into, for example, the habits of fish.
May we have an indication of the Government's intention about research in this sphere? For example, will the project of the National Environmental Research Council at last get off the ground. The council has the plans for the project ready, and I understand that it will cost about £500,000 to initiate and carry through some important research.
The second important point I wish to make is that, apart from the traditional fight between the fly and coarse fishermen, this sport crosses all class boundaries in the community and is particularly popular in working class areas in the Midlands and the north of England. Because of this and the nature of our legislation, river authorities and the new regional water boards need to explain, consult and in every way discuss with small angling associations and clubs—in other words, take the followers of this sport into their confidence—before issuing draft plans. Only by this means will anglers know what is going on and have time to make representations.
I have been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and those hon. Members whom I might affectionately describe as the "Derbyshire Twins"—my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—to mention the type of confusion that can arise. My hon. Friends have asked me to apologise to the House for their absence, and in the case of the first two I mentioned their absence is due to serious personal matters
They have asked me to raise a problem which arose for their constituents over the use of maggots as bait. In the area covered by the Trent River Authority, in which my hon. Friends' constituents fish, there was a lot of land-locked water into which the local association introduced trout. It thought that because it was land-locked it would be able to fish with maggots throughout the


year and that a close season would not apply.
The anglers in the area were happy to allow the fly fishermen to have the rivers, the tributories and the close season to themselves, thinking that because their water was land-locked and because they had themselves introduced the trout into it, they would be exempted from these provisions.
Confusion was confounded when they found that they were not exempted. Apparently, they were unable to fish in these waters, even though they were themselves responsible for introducing the trout. This is a matter which the Minister should examine, and, while he may be unable to deal with this particular problem today, I would be grateful if he would comment on the general problem which it raises and the need to discuss with clubs and associations what without any stretch of the imagination is detailed and complex legislation. It contains many exceptions and provisos, with discretion for local river authorities to act in certain ways. Anglers are finding themselves in an extremely difficult position over these complicated issues.
My third point is about access to rivers and the amount of water now available for fishing. A welcome development in Britain since the war has been the increase in water sports, including waiter ski-ing and boating generally. Many more rivers have been opened up to the general public for water sports.
Although a welcome development, this has resulted in a reduction in the amount of what one might call "calm waters" for fishermen, and as anglers tend to operate in small associations and are, generally speaking, members of society who are not particularly vocal—this is in many ways a solitary sport—the areas available for fishing are gradually being reduced because of these other proper and legitimate sporting interests.
This is another reason why it is extremely important to know what plans the Government have in mind for the treating of pollution, an important omission from the Bill, and the proportion of money which the Department of the Environment will designate to clear up the environment in general and rivers in particular. In other words, how much

of the £1,300 million will be spent not only to give anglers better opportunity to fish but to make up for the areas they have lost?
This brings me to my fourth point, on which many anglers feel deeply. It is the question of private individuals and small syndicates buying up stretches of prime fishing rivers, using them rarely and depriving legitimate small associations and individual fishermen of access to these rivers, which these wealthy people maintain purely as status symbols for themselves and a few of their rich friends.
While under this Bill river authorities have the right to grant exclusive fishing licences, this problem must be examined carefully. We should do our best to reduce these exclusive fishing rights and open up our rivers to legitimate fishermen who, being licensed, are obviously responsible people who are concerned with the problem of conservation and over fishing. These areas must be opened up, and we must get away from the idea that angling, or particular types of it, such as fly fishing, is a rich man's sport. It should be available to all anglers.
We welcome the Bill and the hon. Gentleman's persistence in getting the Department to get it out of the pigeon-hole and allow him to bring it forward. We congratulate him on his handling of it. It is only a start for fishermen. We established the National Angling Council and gave fishermen a central forum at which to raise their problems. We have now dealt with the problem of licensing and the need to bring the 1923 and 1925 Acts up to date. We now want more money to be spent on research, better access to waters and action to clean up all our rivers quickly so that what is the greatest participant sport in Britain can continue to flourish.
Speaking as the representative of a North Country constituency, I am sure I echo the view of all anglers and others interested in the environment when I say that if rivers like the Mersey, Ouse, and parts of the Trent, which are now too thick to swim and too thin to plough, could become viable for fishing, we would find them lined with anglers, just as we see great numbers of people fishing by the sides of Continental rivers, and one need only think of the picture postcards of the banks of the Seine. The


Opposition welcome this Bill and I trust it will be given its Third Reading.

11.29 a.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Icongratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) on selecting this Bill for his personal attention this year, and on his wisdom in leaving out of it any matter of controversy. As the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has just said, the Bill has been needed for many years, and, having regard to the limited time available for Private Members' legislation, my hon. Friend was wise to decide on a non-controversial Bill so that at least a start could be made on improving the law relating to salmon and freshwater fisheries.
This legislation has had a lengthy gestation period. It is just over 11 years since the Bledisloe Committee reported. I do not think that the members of that Committee were ahead of their time in their consideration of the problem and in their conclusions and recommendations. I fear that we have had to wait so long for the legislation just because Parliament in such matters tends to fall behind at times.
Legislation on both salmon and freshwater fisheries is nothing new for Parliament. It was amusing, turning once again to the Bledisloe Report, to be reminded that there is a clause in Magna Carta which refers to salmon, and the first Act dealing specifically with these fish appears to have been passed in 1285 in the reign of Edward I. From time to time after that date further legislation was passed: most of it seems to have re-enacted earlier legislation, and it was only in the Salmon Act of 1865 that so many of the existing threads were drawn together.
Because of pollution problems we have in recent years had to accept the fact that in at least some of our rivers and some of our waters salmon have become less important because the water has become less fresh, but I believe that as pollution is brought increasingly under control it will present less of a problem in our rivers but more of a problem in the sea. This will affect salmon in particular. If by international co-operation

we are able to control sea pollution I hope that we shall be able to look forward to the time when more of our rivers will again have salmon swimming in them, to the benefit of those who enjoy the sport of salmon fishing as much as to the benefit of those who enjoy eating the fish. I have no doubt that when that time comes not only salmon but coarse fish will exist in greater profusion in those rivers.
It is interesting to note the comments made by the Bledisloe Committee when it considered the need for review. Back in 1961 the Committee noted:
The present fishery code is 38 years old and is largely a re-enactment of earlier salmon fishery legislation.
It noted, too:
…many economic and social changes which have taken place in this country since 1923 have had important repercussions on fisheries.
It stated:
The breaking-up of well-keep red estates into a number of smaller ownerships has increased the difficulties of effectively policing the rivers and enforcing the conservation provisions of the Fisheries Acts.
The Committee also noted:
Increased industrialisation and urbanisation of the country has been alleged"—
perhaps that is an under-statement—
to have depreciated the fisheries by pollution, by water abstraction and by increased rate of run-off of surface water.
It noted, too:
The licensing provisions of the Acts also need reviewing in the light of present-day requirements".
If those arguments, and others, had validity in 1957, when the Bledisloe Committee was established, they have infinitely more strength today because the rate of economic and social change has speeded up. There has been much more industrialisation and urbanisation. We have become much more concerned about problems of pollution and water abstraction. I therefore think that the arguments in favour of many of the recommended changes in the law have increased in strength and urgency.
In addition, we are now living in an age of increasing leisure and recreation. There is, therefore, bound to be an increase in the demand for leisure-time activities of all sorts. The demand for new opportunities is steadily multiplying


The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, North referred to this point. He also noted, and rightly, because it is very relevant to our consideration, that fishing is no longer a monoply sport as it used to be on so much of the available water space. There is an increasing variety of activities which are carried out in and upon water, and in consequence the pressure upon the open space available is steadily growing. That means that there must be a good deal of give and take not only between the different sports and recreations carried out on water but also amongst fishermen themselves.
I have a good deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman said about the small number, and it is only a very small number, of organisations, and even individual people, who tend to make inadequate use of the water available to them. Apart from anything else, this is unwise, because very often nowadays it is possible to obtain a little income from the water if it is properly exploited. I therefore hope that we shall see less of the monopolistic approach which in some cases—I emphasise again, in only a very few instances—still exists.
In the light of all these points, it is very important that the law should be brought up to date both to meet the needs and rights of inviduals and to ensure that salmon and freshwater fisheries can be properly conserved and sensibly exploited. In short, the Bill is concerned with good husbandry of salmon and freshwater fisheries.
Clause 1 is obviously sensible, but I have to admit that when I got to line 16, which prohibits the use of a gaff, a shudder of rather ancient guilt went through me. I can remember many years ago leaning over a river bank waiting for an unthinking salmon to come swimming over the gaff, as indeed it did later the same evening to my delight. I do not think I was even aware that there was a law. Since then I have been made aware that there is a law, and, most recently, that we are reviewing and revising it. These prohibitions are sensible, and it is right that they should be restated.
It is right in Clause 3 to give the river authorities more power to fix close seasons to suit local conditions, subject to minimum periods. Climate, season,

temperature and conditions vary around the country. In the light of this, some local discretion is sensible. I commend Clause 3(5), which will in future enable a man to sell a fish which he has caught legally, subject to the other provisions of the Bill.
There is some disappointment that the Bill does not include a provision to require the registration of dealers in salmon. Such a requirement was favoured by the Fishmongers Company, the Association of River Authorities and the National Council of Salmon Netsmen. There was opposition from other interested parties. The Government will have to keep a close watch on this. The fact that there has not been and will not be, at least under the Bill, registration may mean that there will continue to be a possible loophole in the law which will make it more difficult to uphold the provisions of the Bill when enacted.
On Clause 4, we take note of what my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North said. As the rainbow trout is rather like the Loch Ness monster—subject to a good deal of myth and uncertainty—there is an argument in favour of more research upon this very interesting and effective fish.
I take the point that some of my hon. Friends have made in private conversation about the need to ensure that nesting birds are not disturbed, although I do not agree with them, for the same reasons as my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West gave, that we need worry too much about this point. Those of us who fish, for whatever sort of fish it might be, have experience on river, lake and loch bank of birds nesting right beside the spot where we are fishing without the birds apparently expressing any concern at our presence. There are some birds, particularly partridges and pheasants, which are most adept at nesting as near as possible to footpaths, I suspect because they realise, consciously or subconsciously, that where man tends to go some of the predatory birds and animals will tend not to go and, therefore, they may find man a reassurance rather than a hindrance in the nesting season.
Clauses 6 to 9, which concern licences and licensing, are sensible and are a reasonable modernisation of previous


provisions. I believe that they will work sensibly.
I therefore give the Bill a very warm welcome. I end by echoing the hope expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West that this is only a beginning in the legislation on fishing, because pressure and demand will build up for both fishing and other border activities, and, in consequence, Parliament will have to keep a very close watch to maintain a balance between the needs and demands of all people interested in water sport and to ensure that the laws of good husbandry and conservation with regard to fish are upheld.

11.46 a.m.

Mr. Piers Dixon: I am delighted to join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) on the Bill. My hon. Friend described it as a new charter for fishermen. I see it also as a new charter for fish. The two go together. I admit to not being a fisherman.
In Cornwall, part of which I have the good fortune to represent, there are virtually no salmon in the twentieth century. I shall follow my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) into a discursion into the past. In Cornwall in the Middle Ages there were more salmon than in any part of Britain. To Crécy the counties of England sent men in large numbers to support the Black Prince on the field of battle. Cornwall sent salmon. I want to stick to the terms of the Bill, but I should like my friends in Devon to remember that after the battle of Crécy the Black Prince wrote a letter to his friends in Cornwall thanking them for having sent this large quantity of salmon to sustain his forces on the day of crisis and referring to the fact that the salmon had been caught
in your river, the Tamar".
In the sixteenth century the apprentices of Lostwithiel ate salmon throughout the week. They ate so much salmon that they petitioned their masters to allow them to eat less of it. The corporation of Lostwithiel specifically enacted a byelaw saying that the masters were not to feed salmon to the apprentices of Lostwithiel more than two days a week.
Now, alas, in Cornwall there are virtually no salmon. I take this to be an example of the environmental problems in which we live and which this legislation underlies. As other hon. Members have said, I see this legislation as being not only the first of further legislation on this subject but typical of the sort of legislation which will have to be passed by the House in view of the increasing industrial activity and increasing population over the years. With the population explosion increasing rapidly in this small island we shall inevitably have examples of further pollution and of over-fishing and, indeed, an excessive form of human activity of every sort. When the population was smaller we could do more or less what we wished. We lived in a world of laissez faire, with which I think hon Members on both sides of the House would have agreed 100 years ago.

Mr. McNamara: Not I.

Mr. Dixon: The hon. Member would not have been here—nor, indeed, would I—to express on opinion.
I believe it is with this type of legislation that we shall increasingly be confronted in the House in the future. For those reasons, I add my support and congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West.

11.50 a.m.

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) was over-modest in what he said in moving the Third Reading of the Bill. This is a good and very important Bill which is long overdue.
We were reminded from the Opposition Front Bench that fishing is not a rich man's sport. It certainly is not. Well over 2 million people enjoy fishing, and we are told by the Sports Council and other experts that the number will grow to 3 million by the end of the decade. This is a very large number of people, and they get a great deal of pleasure from fishing, whether salmon, trout or coarse fish.
It was as long ago as 1961 that the Bledisloe Report was published, and it is a sad commentary on successive Governments that it has taken so long to incorporate into law some of the important recommendations in that report. Even


now there are many outstanding recommendations—as many as 50—in that report which still need careful consideration.
Since 1961 there have been two modest Measures, in 1964 and 1965, arising from the Bledisloe recommendations. The 1965 Measure was my own Bill, although it was blocked in this House not because it was controversial but because it was low in the queue. It was introduced into another place by Lord Egremont, and when it came here the Labour Government were extremely helpful in providing Government time for the Third Reading because it was so lown down in the queue.
In that Measure I dealt only with the use of poisons and electrical devices, and no less import to breaking down of dams. That Measure greatly increased the penalties for this scientific type of poaching done on a gang basis with great profit—a very different form of poaching from that which my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) mentioned when he hooked a salmon with a gaff, which was very naughty of him.
I wish to say a few words about some of the Clauses which interest me most. Clause 1 is very important in extending the list of prohibited instruments and applying this list to all fish. The prohibitions on these instruments apply to all fish, which has not been the case up till now. The Clause also extends the current prohibition on the throwing of stones and missiles to all freshwater fish, which up till now has not been the case. This is a sensible and desirable provision.
Coming to Clause 2, it is very important that the Minister should have the right to approve a fish pass. Obviously, he would not do this unless the pass were working properly. The Bill is a step forward in that it provides for the Minister's approval to be provisional until he is satisfied that the fish pass is working satisfactorily. Many of our famous rivers have been seriously damaged by the construction of inadequate fish passes, and I welcome this provision.
At present, as the House knows, authorities have only very limited byelaw powers to vary the national statutory close seasons for various groups of instrument—rod and line, nets and so

on—and they have no power to vary the season for putts and putchers unless a special order is sought. By Clause 3 the only national restriction in future will be a statement of a minimum period in terms of days for certain types of fish. This is excellent. There are very good reasons why we should have a more flexible approach to this question. I am not absolutely convinced that there is a need in all cases for such long minimum periods of close season. Different areas obviously require different treatment, and that is a very good reason for this flexible approach.
Furthermore the habits of fish change in a remarkable way, in the same way as our habits change. During the Easter Recess I was lucky to have a day on the Tweed when I killed a salmon in water which looked rather like brown Windsor soup. I am usually an unlucky fisherman, but on this occasion I was fortunate. The salmon, incidentally, had a touch of disease on its head.
The Tweed is interesting in this respect, that it was widely regarded as a spring river till not long ago. Now spring fish are coming up at 8, 9 and 10 lbs. The bigger fish are unusual. All the bigger fish are coming up in the autumn. This has happened in the most extraordinary way. This can and does happen in many rivers.
All kinds of different approaches have been made to this question of close seasons. In New Zealand, for example, where one probably finds the most famous trout lake in the world, Lake Taupo, there is no close season at all. This may seem very strange, but the reason is that the fish in Lake Taupo are a special breed of rainbow trout. They used to be very large indeed, running up to 16 and 18 lbs.—enormous fighting fish. It is unusual now to get a fish weighing more than 10 lbs. and, indeed, the bigger fish are commonly only 6 or 7 lbs. The New Zealand Government decided sensibly not to have a close season because there were too many fish in that landlocked lake and they were easily caught.
In New Zealand, in order to prevent the type of poaching which we are seeking to prohibit, one is not allowed to sell salmon. One may eat salmon or give it away, but not sell it—a provision which I applied to wild geese in my Wild


Birds Protection Bill which I got through this House.
Both these points, which are slightly wide of the Bill, nevertheless emphasise the need for Clause 3 and for a more flexible approach in giving far greater powers of decision to local people.
There is another interesting point arising from Clause 3 on the subject of the regulation of the sale of fish in the close season. The control of sales is tied closely to the close season for netting. It is encouraging to know that the Fishmongers Company does not consider that the relaxation of statutory controls to allow variation according to local conditions will make policing unduly difficult. Some anxiety on this score was expressed at earlier stages of the drafting of the Bill, but I think that we can set that anxiety aside. The burden of proof that a sale does not contravene the embargo will lie on the buyer or seller of the fish.
I made a rather careful study of this matter as a member of the law and netting committee of the Salmon and Trout Association—I have been on the council of that body for a good many years—and the Fishmongers Company itself, of course, is extremely expert in all these matters, and its advice on the question is well worth heeding.
On Clause 5, I welcome the provision that river authorities are empowered to insist on having returns from all anglers, including nil returns. There will be plenty of those, I am sure, for fishermen do not stick to fishing unless they are prepared to have a lot of blank days. But nil returns are important. At present there is a loophole in the powers of river authorities in that anglers could till now plead that they did not send in a return because they did not catch any fish. River authorities need full returns of catches of salmon and trout in order to consider what measures are necessary for the conservation of stocks in any particular area.
I am glad, also, that under Clause 5 the powers are capable of being applied to freshwater fish, should that be necessary. However, I am not sufficiently expert on that subject to comment on it.
On Clause 10, I greatly welcome that river authorities will be able to ensure that undesirable species of fish are not

introduced into rivers in their areas. The Clause makes it an offence to introduce any fish into an inland water, or to have in one's possession any fish with intent to introduce them, without first obtaining the written consent of the river authority concerned.
We all know how magnificent fisheries of the highest quality can be destroyed by the introduction of, for instance, pike or perch or, for that matter, even a non-predatory fish such as the roach, which breeds at an extraordinary rate. I have two small ponds at home, neither of them any bigger than this Chamber. I stocked one of them with rainbow trout and the other with brown trout. Apart from the problem that a heron with a special taste for trout has been enjoying itself during the last year or two, it is not possible for me to keep trout in either of those ponds because roach have somehow been introduced, perhaps unintentionally by the heron itself. There are now so many roach that there is too little food, and it would not be worth my while to reintroduce trout into either of those ponds.
I give that as a small example of the way in which the introduction of undesirable types of fish in waters where people enjoy fishing can completely destroy that fishing.
Finally, a word about Clause 12. I am particularly glad that the punishment will now fit the crime. At present, with the sole exception of offences under Section 9—this arose directly out of my Bill in 1965—dealing with the use of explosives and poisons, the penalty for an offence is a fine of £50, plus £5 a day for an offence continued after conviction, and on the third or subsequent conviction there is the alternative of three months in prison. Under Section 9 the penalties are £50 or three months imprisonment for the first offence, or for a second or subsequent offence £100 and/or three months' imprisonment, with provision also in the section for conviction on indictment carrying a penalty of an unlimited fine and/or two years' imprisonment.
It was a fairly controversial matter on my own modest Bill in 1965 that the penalties were so steeply increased, but one must frankly say that the penalties then were derisory—so derisory that it was hardly worth prosecuting, in view of the fat profits which scientific poachers


were able to make. For example, simply by filling a nylon stocking with Cymag, normally used for killing rats and other vermin, and hanging it in a pool full of fish, it was possible, by taking the oxygen out of the water, to force every fish to come to the surface, enabling one then to net them below the pool and, perhaps, make a profit of £600 or £800 by an hour's work at night. This was being done on a large scale by gangs providing fish for ships at Liverpool, and so on.
I am glad that the application of Scots law, which I copied in 1965 for England and Wales, seems to have had the desired effect. What I did, incidentally, led to threats on my life. I did not mention that at the time, but it is certainly no news now. There are some pretty rough people involved in this business, and I had to be given police protection for a short time because the threats were taken seriously.
I very much welcome, therefore, my hon. Friend's introduction of sensible penalties taking full account of the fall in the value of money, and taking full account, also, of the seriousness of the crime, both on summary conviction and on indictment. I congratulate him on what he has done there.
I warmly welcome the Bill. Our legislation covering these matters is in a pretty untidy state still. Some of the provisions of the 1923 Act are quite outdated and difficult to apply. I do not go so far as to say that they are completely unworkable, but they are certainly out of date. There is need to look broadly at the whole question again as soon as time can be found in order to consider whether some of the other slightly more controversial recommendations in the Bledisloe Report can be incorporated into our law, and whether the law itself can be tidied up and brought out of its present rather complicated and confused state, which is the inevitable result of the constant introduction of amending legislation.
The Bill is good not only because the recommendations themselves were sound but because it is based on extensive consultation. Great credit is due to my hon. Friend for the immense amount of work he has done to ensure that the Salmon and Trout Association, the Anglers Co-operative Association, the river authorities, the Fishmongers Company and all the other bodies concerned with

fishing were extensively consulted so that he could prepare and introduce a Bill of this importance comparatively easily.
Our fishing is threatened in a variety of ways. It is threatened by pollution. Several Private Members' Bills, including that introduced by my hon. Friend for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple), have been very valuable in this respect, although I should like to see them enforced more energetically. Pollution both in tidal waters and above tidal waters remains serious. A good many people do not realise just how bad it is.
How many people know, for example, that in the first 30 or 40 years of the last century the Thames was a famous salmon river? During a sitting of the House we could have gone down to the Terrace and thrown a fly into the river, perhaps taking a 35-lb. salmon—and we could have handed our rod to a policeman when we went back for a Division, and then returned to land the fish.
Unhappily, there are now no salmon able to pass through the pollution and go above tidal waters, although they are certainly trying to do so. At the time when this Bill was before the House, I offered a £100 cheque to the first person who took a salmon with rod and line above tidal waters on the Thames. Nothing would give me more pleasure than the signing of that cheque.

Mr. David Crouch: I do not want to worry my hon. and gallant Friend, but I should tell him that his offer may well be taken up. Only yesterday I read of a trout, not a salmon, being found far below what has come to be regarded as the usual level. I think that this improvement is very much due to his efforts in the past and to his Bill.

Sir T. Beamish: I am absolutely delighted, but it must be a freshwater fish and not a tin of Japanese salmon or anything like that. It is possible that the Thames could again become a great salmon river, and that would be splendid.
Salmon fishing is particularly threatened by the activities of the Danish trawlers, and it is a great pleasure to know that the Government and the previous Government have made great efforts to get the Danes to see sense over this matter. Salmon and trout fishing are also threatened by disease, and it has been almost impossible to do anything about


this, although it seems to be gradually clearing itself up. The fourth way in which fishing has been damaged has been by the use of illegal methods and the lack of proper conservation. It is to meet these points that my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West is introducing this excellent Bill, and I congratulate him most warmly on his initiative.

12.16 p.m.

Mr. David Crouch: I am sure it will not have escaped your notice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are discussing this fishy business on a Friday. It is a very appropriate day. It has occurred to me that there may be some dismay outside the House that the Chamber——

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Member's comment is on longer appropriate. And I say that with a constituency interest because we sell fish

Mr. Crouch: I am a rather old world character and some innovations do not always penetrate my appreciation, but I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying.
I was about to say that there may be some dismay outside the House that the Chamber is not very full for this important piece of legislation. I do not think the public should be dismayed, however, because there is a proper interest in the subject today. We have heard a number of speeches, particularly the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) who introduced the Measure, supported by so many of his hon. Friends and by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who have made a valuable contribution to the debate.
It is not inappropriate either that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North should speak from the Opposition benches because while his interests per haps do not penetrate too far inland, where fishing is concerned he represents one of our major ports with both inshore and offshore fishing and he has often reminded the House of his concern for them. We have a Prime Minister today who is primarily a yachtsman. He was preceded by a Prime Minister who sported himself on the golf course. His predecessor was associated principally with the grouse moor——

Mr. Charles Morrison: And with salmon.

Mr. Crouch: That is splendid. I have not seen many photographs of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on his own rivers.
The Bill is confined to England and Wales, although it touches the Border river. I remember when I was a boy seeing pictures from more leisurely days when Prime Ministers had more time to go fishing. Fishing is a sport that requires time, leisure and peace. We used to see Prime Ministers up to their knees in water, wearing long rubber boots, fishing our waters in great peace. My wife says that this is an ideal sport for a politician. We lead a hectic life, night and day, and if we could ever find a moment to take up the sport it would concentrate our minds wonderfully on something other than our most immediate concern, our constituents.
I am prompted to speak not as a fisherman but as a Member representing what is partly a rural constituency with a water problem, a fishing problem and a pollution problem. I was recently approached by a large number of my constituents who were concerned about the lack of water in some of our rivers and streams in Kent and the damage that this was causing to our wild life and to the fish that should be inhabiting the streams. Not many years ago Kent was an area where it was common to fish for salmon. This is no longer the case, although it is still possible to fish for trout in some streams in Kent.
The Bill brings up to date the provisions of the 1923 Act and previous Acts and, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) said, it is a tidying-up Measure. It is important that we should have the legislation affecting our freshwater fisheries tidied up. But the Bill would be of no value, it would not be worth the paper it is printed on or the time we are taking to discuss it if our water dried up or became so polluted that the fish were no longer there to be caught. I do not wish to stray too far from the Bill, but the way we abstract water from some of our streams and rivers is very worrying. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is concerned at this problem and is seeking to regulate and improve the


whole administration of our water resources. If, however, we proceed to abstract water from our streams in the way it is done at present, we will cause them to dry up. This has already been happening over a number of years. Kent is very largely on chalk and it therefore produces streams of very pure water which is excellent for fish breeding. The risks of polluting it are self-evident.
Pollution can come from fertilisers washed off the topsoil into the rivers, from sewage pollution and from accidental and casual pollution by careless persons. Normally, if there is a good water flow, that pollution can be dealt with by the natural effects of the water flowing over its chalky base. But the expediency of the water boards today of abstracting water upstream can only have the effect of reducing the flow of water. Modern industrial and domestic society uses a great deal more water than it did, and there are now a great deal more boreholes than there were. The cheapest way of finding water is to——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. The hon. Member should go with his rod to another pool because there are no fish in this one. He must talk about fish.

Mr. Crouch: I accept that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I realised that I might stray out of order on Third Reading, but I was seeking only to stress that the paper on which the Bill is printed could be wasted and we could be wasting our time if we did not remember that fish have to have water in which to live.
I would like to turn to the Bill itself and make some comments on Clause 1 on the prohibited instruments. This is a very good piece of tidying up. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) mentioned that he now knows what a gaff is for but he did not always observe that in the past, and this is a proper understanding. The Bill says that a gaff can be carried and used as an auxiliary to fishing but that it would be an offence to use it as a means of knocking the fish out. The Bill refers to people throwing stones at fish and I must say I had not realised that this was a practice adopted by some fishermen. Presumably it is or the Bill would not have drawn our attention to it, and pre-

sumably there are some who can throw stones with great accuracy.
The Bill recognises a change in our society in the way poachers and other illegal fishermen now work. It prohibits the use of the barrel gun which is used by skin divers to shoot fish under water. River authorities have run up against difficulties in trying to bring prosecutions against those using such a weapon. Underwater fishermen may not always use a barrel gun and might instead use that new underwater fishing device adapted from an older instrument, the crossbow. The Bill prohibits the use of the crossbow in these circumstances.
I have a number of queries particularly about the fish farmer. I am not sure whether the fish farmer is excluded from the provisions in respect of prohibited instruments. I am sure that no farmer would use such instruments, but is my hon. Friend the Minister satisfied that the Clause is clear enough? I may be told that such a farmer whose main work was the artificial propagation of salmon and trout would not need to use these methods. I should like to know whether the Bill goes far enough in giving these people protection.
The Bill takes account of the need for satisfactory fish passes and acknowledges the fact that what is satisfactory in one part of the country is not necessarily satisfactory in another. I am glad that there is this requirement because such passes are essential for the free passage of migratory fish. River authorities and the Minister will have power to see whether such passes are installed satisfactorily and the power to require, if they are not satisfactory, that they should be suitably modified.
I turn to Clause 3 and the question of the close season for salmon and brown or migratory trout. I am not clear on some points. The Clause gives the river authorities more power to fix their own close seasons and times to suit local conditions, which is sensible. The Bledisloe Committee made a different recommendation when it recommended that river authorities should have complete discretion to determine the length and frequency of close times by byelaw and to fix the annual close season for rod and line and commercial fishing by byelaw, without statutory limitation on duration


or dates. The Bill requires this statutory national restriction to be limited to certain periods of time. Why is there to be this difference in approach?
I was interested in a point made about putts and putchers. I have not come across these but I gather that they are used essentially on the River Severn where there is a strong flow of water. They are wide at one end and narrow at the other and the fish are virtually pushed into them by the turbidity of the water.
I come to the question of the sale of fish in the close season. The Bledisloe Committee recommended that what a man caught legally he should be able to sell legally. The Bill allows the sale of salmon and trout if legally caught by rod and line. What is the position with rainbow trout farmers? I understand that there is no such limitation because there is no close season for that fish. Is it impossible for brown trout or salmon to be sold outside the close season? It is the position of fish farms that confuses me. I understand that they are exempt from the provision about taking salmon or trout in the close season because it is said that they are taking them for artificial propagation and restocking. Are fish farms to be allowed freedom to sell these fish in the close season? My reading of the Bill is that they are not.
I raise this point because there is no close season for rainbow trout and I understand that the same situation may one day apply to salmon. Experiments in the artificial propagation of salmon are being conducted in Scotland and it would be interesting if the House could hear some news about this. It would be nice to be able to get salmon for the table all the year round.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister does not think I am asking too many questions but he will appreciate that we had a rapid Committee stage. What is the situation with coarse fish in the close season? According to my understanding there is no scientific ground for there being a close season for these fish largely because they have a higher reproductive ability than salmon or trout.
I believe that the balance of opinion in coarse fishing is against a close season, although some say that there should be

one, arguing that it is necessary to have rules to protect the fish against what one can only describe as an unsporting approach by certain coarse fishermen who would take out of the water an unclean fish—a fish in spawn. Why is the Ministry's view of legislation slightly different from what the scientific evidence would seem to suggest.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have already asked me to confine myself to fish and not to include water. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has given me two looks indicating his hope that I would not raise too many more fishing questions. The short answer is that I have nothing more to say except that I am looking forward to the reply. I hope and am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome the introduction of this important tidying-up and modernising Measure, which will be valuable to all anglers, all fishermen, whether they fish for salmon or trout or are coarse fishermen. I hope it will ensure that we produce not only more anglers but more fish and will encourage the Department of the Environment to pursue still more energetically and determinedly the question of preserving our waters for our fish

12.32 p.m.

The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): I echo the well merited congratulations of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) on his success in the ballot and his decision to introduce the Bill, to which he has given great thought, care and attention. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Dixon) I do not fish. I believe that it is something that I must miss a great deal because it is a sport beloved by millions of our people. It is reputed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) said, to allow one to be able to relax and ponder and reflect, certainly more than one is able to do where I take my sporting activities, on the golf course.
Salmon and freshwater fisheries are an aspect of the subject of fishing which the House rarely debates. Although there have been minor changes, the substantive legislation amended by the Bill is nearly 50 years old. Many of its provisions date from nearly a century ago. The Act still works remarkably well but, of course, practices and the administrative


structure for salmon and freshwater fisheries are totally different today. For example, one has now to deal with offences committed with the help of motor cars and explosives and by gangs, which no one had thought of when the legislation was drafted 50 years ago. Because of this the Act needs refurbishing and the Bill, which sets out to improve in a number of ways the protection and conservation arrangements for salmon and freshwater fish in England and Wales, goes a long way to modernising the legislation.
The Bill seeks to implement a number of recommendations made by the Bledisloe Committee, which about 10 years ago reviewed in detail the operation of the Fisheries Acts. Its conclusions met with general approval from the fisheries interests and the Government. It is clear, from consultations with all shades of fisheries opinion, that the proposals in the Bill command widespread support from those interests and that within its modest compass it provides something to assist every fishery interest—the game and the coarse fishing angler, the match fisherman, the pensioner, the bona fide commercial fisherman, the conservationists and the river authorities.
I thank the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for his welcome to the Bill, and I welcome him to the Opposition Front Bench for a fisheries debate. He asked me about the National Environment Research Council. It spent a total of just under £500,000 on freshwater research in 1970–71. The council supports all research into inland waters, which falls broadly into two categories—the development of the science of hydrology and the comprehensive research in biology, ecology and the productivity of inland water systems. Full details of these are given in the council's report for April, 1970, to March, 1971, which was laid before Parliament.
In addition to that research, my Department has its own freshwater fisheries laboratory, costing £250,000 a year. We have recently opened a new disease research laboratory at Weymouth, which is the most modern of its kind in Europe, and in addition the river authorities and many other fisheries bodies also undertake research. Although I agree that much needs to be done—and as in

every other subject one wishes one could do more—I think that the subject of research is being taken care of and Ministers will continue to be interested.
The hon. Gentleman asked about consultation on byelaws. I agree that it is essential. The general procedure is that fishery byelaws are made by river authorities and not by the Ministry. The river authorities have among their membership people who are carefully selected by the Minister on the nomination of local angling and fishing bodies to represent fisheries in their areas. Most authorities have in addition consultative committees comprised of local fishermen and invariably they consult widely before determining of any byelaw. The byelaw itself has to be advertised in a number of local newspapers and a month has to be allowed for objections before the Minister's consent can be sought. The Minister considers all objections and if they are substantial he invariably holds a public inquiry before making his decision. Therefore we can claim to go to a considerable length to ensure that views are considered.
If the hon. Gentleman will let me have the details of the particular point he raised, I will look into it. I assume that he was referring to brown trout, since there is no provision at present generally requiring a close season for rainbow trout. The close season for brown trout has existed since 1923 and it is necessary in order to give such fish time to breed unhindered. I advise the hon. Gentleman's anglers to discuss their problems with the river authority, and if they cannot get a satisfactory answer I will willingly look at the position if he or they care to write to me.

Mr. McNamara: On behalf of my hon. Friends I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that kind offer. The point I was seeking to illustrate was not that the statutory procedures were not available, or that they were not used properly, but that because of the very nature of this complicated legislation there was a need for greater dissemination and more simplification so that more people could know exactly what was provided. Members of anglers' clubs are not lawyers, and club secretaries often have full-time jobs and do not always appreciate the significance of what is placed before them in legal jargon.

Mr. Stodart: I take note of that. The one great thing about this Measure is that, for legislation, it is remarkably lucid, and I hope that that will help, but I will take note of what the hon. Gentleman says.
The hon. Gentleman asked about pollution. He referred to £1,300 million, and I assume that he was referring to the statement of my right hon. Friend when Volume I of the River Pollution Survey was published. I understand that £1,300 million will be spent on water and sewerage sources in England alone and this includes materially more than £800 million of expenditure on sewerage and sewage disposal, excluding expenditure by industry, at March, 1971, prices.
The hon. Gentleman asked about inland waters. We ran into a drafting difficulty. The example he gave was that of the Derbyshire anglers. The close season extends to any inland water and in theory that brings in ornamental ponds and fish ponds as well as gravel pits and reservoirs. I make no bones about saying that parliamentary counsel found great difficulty in devising a satisfactory form of words to embrace the latter, as we wanted, while excluding the former. But it is not expected that in practice any difficulties will arise over what private owners put into ponds for their own pleasure, although river authorities might have to take note if an owner let out fishing rights and there was a danger of the transfer of fish to other fishing waters.
The hon. Member and my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) entered into some speculation about the habits of the rainbow trout. Rainbow trout are not indigenous to this country and generally they will not breed here. However, there are a few streams in which it is claimed that they have bred, and therefore Clause 4 provides that whereas, unlike coarse fish, there will not be a definite close season, in future a river authority will be able by byelaw to establish a close season of not less than 93 days for rainbow trout if it so wishes. That is the effect of Clause 4(1).
I will now go through the Clauses and answer the questions put to me. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes was worried about the way in which he had used a gaff and was rightly reassured by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury, because there will continue to be

an exemption for use or possession. Under subsection (2) it will not be an offence to possess a gaff, which is otherwise a prohibited instrument, when it is intended to be used as an auxiliary to angling with a rod and line.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) and my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury expressed their approval of the way in which the extension of the various prohibited instruments appeared in the Bill. It is true that we now have to cope with the use of the underwater gun by skin divers who may try to take salmon and freshwater fish. It will now be an offence to use or possess a firearm for taking or killing fish and, with the wide definition of the Firearms Act, 1968, this will include the underwater barrelled gun. But since the offence is tied to the use of or possession with intent to use named instruments for the purpose of taking or killing fish, it does not involve a ban on the normal use of other underwater equipment, nor of carrying a gun for other purposes. If an underwater barrelled gun is used by skin divers for this purpose, it will be subject to forfeiture, as will other illegal instruments.
The use of the words:
throwing any stone into any water
in the 1923 Act is broadened. It would require remarkably skilful throwing, but this Bill would effectively outlaw the throwing or discharging of missiles at leaping fish. Presumably such a thing has been done, and this provision is the means of preventing it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury asked about the application of Clause 1 to fish farms. The Bledisloe Committee reported that the current application of the Fisheries Acts to fish farms was a matter of doubt and recommended that fish farms should be expressly excluded from provisions relating, among other things, to methods of fishing. Although provision is made in Section 5 of the 1923 Act for the exemption from penalty of certain acts with the general purpose, among others, of the artificial propagation of salmon, trout or freshwater fish, this does not exclude the use or possession of prohibited instruments, but it is difficult to believe that fish farmers would ever


want to use any of the methods prohibited by Clause 1.
Certainly my Department has not had any complaint from fish farmers that their activities are in any way frustrated by their not being allowed to use these methods. In so far as a fish farm is a private fishery, the method used could be said to be conductive to preserving or developing a fishery, and if the permission of the river authority had been obtained the fish farmer could claim exemption under Section 1(2) of the 1923 Act.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes referred to a fish pass. The Bledisloe Committee recommended that approval should be provisional until the pass was functioning satisfactorily, and that is the effect of Clause 2. Fish passes are the sort of things that might appear to work well to start with but it is thoroughly wise, in view of the things that can go wrong, that approval should be provisional until a wholly satisfactory conclusion is reached.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes spoke about the licensing of dealers. The Bledisloe Committee considered that a restriction on sales was an essential means of controlling illegal catches and further recommended that fresh salmon and trout should be dealt with only by registered dealers. Needless to say, this was a controversial matter. Quite apart from that, one has to realise that if it were to work with complete efficiency it ought to be on a Great Britain basis. A licensing system for dealing in salmon and trout operates in Northern Ireland. It would be a fair innovation to introduce such a system here, but it would involve the use of inspectors to check records.
A similar recommendation was made by the Hunter Committee which reported on Scottish fishing law four years after the Bledisloe Committee. The proposals for implementing its report so far exclude this system. Therefore, this Bill does not provide for implementation of that recommendation.
On the determination of the close season by byelaw, again in Clause 3, the Bledisloe Committee recommended that river authorities should have complete discretion to determine the length and frequency of close times by byelaws and to fix the annual close season for rod

and line and commercial fishing by bye-law without statutory limitation on duration or dates.
These recommendations have been adopted except that, as urged by various other interests, a national minimum length of close season for rod and line and for commercial fishing will continue to operate, the lengths being the same as those now prescribed. In future river authorities will be able not only to adjust for early and late runs of fish but, if they wish, to have different close seasons and periods in different parts of their areas.
The maintenance of a minimum period was carefully considered. Rightly or wrongly, this was a recommendation which many people felt it would be unwise to take further.
Two of my hon. Friends referred to what I believe is called the putcher. I do not think I could be expected to give a detailed description. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury seemed to know all about it. The putcher is largely confined to the Severn. It is apparently an effective way of catching salmon in that the salmon swimming with the current in the turbid water jams itself head first into the putcher, becomes trapped and is removed at low tide. The putt, which is a bigger and more closely woven article, is in three parts called the kype, the fore wheel and butt. The butt is closed with a bung. It is not as efficient as the putcher but it takes shrimps and eels, so it remains in use.
Concerning the sales of fish in the close season, as my hon. Friend quoted, the Bledisloe Committee recommended that what a man can legally catch he should legally be able to sell. Therefore, Clause 3(5) gives effect to this by removing the current ban in the close season on salmon or trout if legally caught by rod and line.
Although sales in the close season are generally banned, sales of salmon and trout, other than rainbow trout, by fish farmers for artificial propagation, or in the case of trout, for restocking are allowed by virtue of the fact that the ban on sales does not apply to fish whose capture or taking was lawful at the time and place of capture.
The position of rainbow trout is, in contrast, quite clear. The provisions


against taking trout in the close season do not apply to rainbow trout. Similarly the provisions against selling do not apply by virtue of Section 32 of the 1923 Act. In so far as fish farmers in England and Wales sell for the table market, their produce is rainbow trout.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes raised on Clause 4 the protection of wild life. I am wholeheartedly sympathetic with this matter. I am on record as saying that I like all birds. I am very fond of them. Indeed, not long ago I demonstrated my particular affection for them.
Among the arguments advanced in support of retaining a statutory close season for coarse fish, is one that it allows time for repairs to the footpaths and banks and the cutting of weeds. It also allows a period of peace for wild life in and around rivers. However, I must point out the close season does not apply to other water pursuits on rivers or other leisure activities in the country. This is a matter which I hope the authorities will consider when they are thinking about this matter.

Mr. Crouch: There is the factor that the owner of the water and the land has within his power the ability to shut off his land if he wishes to observe his own close season.

Mr. Stodart: My hon. Friend is correct.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes welcomed the fact that returns would have to be made, including nil returns. It is true that the statistics of rod-caught fish are extremely poor in many river authority areas. For example, in Lancashire only 3 per cent. of salmon and trout anglers bother to make returns of their catches. Statistics like that are useless for conservation work. Returns made by nets men are more accurate. If we are to do conservation work properly we must have better returns.
The next point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes was on Clause 10. The new provision implements the Bledisloe Committee's recommendation to make the river authorities' written permission a prerequisite to the introduction of fish in rivers or any waters communicating with

rivers. Indeed, that provision goes further by extending the power to cover enclosed waters. Legal advice is that river authorities probably have power to make a byelaw to this effect under Section 59(1) of the 1923 Act for the better protection, preservation and improvement of fisheries. This specific provision in Clause 10 puts the matter beyond doubt.
I turn now to Clause 12, which I regard as being of great importance in the light of what I said earlier about the new methods which are used for poaching and taking fish. Clause 12 with Schedule 2 which it introduces and interprets, set out the new penalties for offences and deal with the power of the courts to order forfeiture and to disqualify a person convicted of a second offence from holding a fishing or general licence. At present, with the sole exception of offences against Section 9 of the Act—the use of explosives, poisons and so on—the penalty for an offence is a fine of £50 plus £5 a day for an offence continued after conviction. On third or subsequent conviction there is an alternative of three months' imprisonment. Under Section 9 the penalties are £50 or three months or, for a second or subsequent offence, £100 and/or three months. There is also provision in that Section for conviction on indictment carrying a penalty of an unlimited fine and/or two years' imprisonment.
The primary purpose of the amendments is to provide a range of penalties according to the seriousness of the offence and, for the generality of cases not specifically designated in Schedule 2, for a higher penalty on second or subsequent offence in place of the liability to imprisonment on third or subsequent offence. Provision for imprisonment on summary conviction disappears entirely, as does the fine for continuing offences except for pollution offences under Section 8 of the 1923 Act.
The nature of the offences not now to be subject to the general penalty in Clause 12(4) are dealt with in detail in the notes on Schedule 2 but, briefly, there are to be three more levels of fine on summary conviction. The first is £100 for a first offence and £200 for a second or subsequent offence for fishing in the close season or close time and for using eel baskets and similar devices in water frequented by salmon and migratory


trout. Secondly, there is a fine of £200 for a first offence and £400 for a second or subsequent offence for the use of explosives and poisons; and, thirdly, £400 plus £40 a day for pollution.
The current provision for indictment for using explosives or poisons is retained with the same penalty. Provision for indictment has additionally been introduced for pollution offences. A higher penalty with provision for indictment is also introduced when two or more people act together to use an illegal method or an unlicensed instrument. This concerns the question of gang offences. The example is already set in Scottish legislation.
"Acting together" is a new concept in the 1923 Act but is by no means unusual in legislation. It is aimed at organised gang activities using methods which can result in considerable damage to stocks. An exception is made for the use of an unlicensed rod and line since it would not be appropriate to apply the heavier penalty in the case of anglers fishing together who had not obtained or renewed a licence. That remedies a possible injustice.
Clause 12(6) provides that the provisions relating to forfeiture in Schedule 7 of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, will apply with certain consequentially necessary amendments in the case of the vessel or vehicle liable to forfeiture under Clause 12(5). The primary purpose of adopting this procedure is to safeguard the innocent owner of a vessel or vehicle used in the commission of an offence—for example, a hired car. It is specifically laid down that if an owner can satisfy a court that the offence was committed without his knowledge and that he could not have reasonably foreseen that the vessel or vehicle would be used in that way, it will not be subject to forfeiture. There are also safeguards in the case of hire purchase transactions.
We have had a most interesting debate and many points and questions have been raised on a Bill which has the Government's wholehearted support. I confirm that my right hon. Friend and myself will take an interest in any of the objections to the byelaws which may be made. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Third Reading.

1.5 p.m.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: With leave, I should like to say a few more words. First, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the interest he has taken in and the support he has given to the Bill. I wish to take this opportunity of thanking all those who have done so much work on it. The Association of River Authorities, the Salmon and Trout Association, the National Federation of Anglers and many others have put a great deal of work into the Bill. Last but not least, I thank the officials at the Ministry of Agriculture who have conducted the negotiations. It is very nice to find that people with divergent interests can reach unanimity. I thank my hon. Friends who have been so kind to me in connection with the Bill.
About 1½ years ago I asked a Question about the implementation of the Bledisloe Report, little thinking that it would fall to me to do something about it. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). It is appropriate that, representing part of a great fishing port, he should have spoken for the Opposition. This is a grim reminder that problems of pollution are no longer confined to fresh water. When we read that even seas like the Mediterranean are being menaced by the pollution of man, it is reminder that we must consider what is happening to the seas as well as to our fresh waters. The hon. Gentleman did well to tell us that many people will be affected by the Bill. He estimated that 2,800,000 anglers spend £160 million a year on fishing. That is an indication of the wide interest which the Bill will command.
I was glad to hear mention of the question of research and my hon. Friend the Minister of State stated that £500,000 a year in Government money is being spent on research and freshwater fisheries. I hope that the Government will be able to spend a little more, because they are becoming increasingly generous in connection with other forms of sport and perhaps fishing is not getting its full share. There has been reference to the danger in the past of a conflict between coarse fishermen and game fishermen, but that is much reduced. As I said earlier, an increasing


number of fishing clubs have trout water as well as coarse fishing water which enables them to fish the year round in regardless of close seasons.
I can see advantage in the extension of visits by clubs not only in England and Wales, which are covered by the Bill, but in Scotland. I agree that anglers should be consulted more by the river authorities. There is room for much more consultation. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North spoke of the question of access and making more water available. It is up to all those who own water to make it available to fishermen to ensure that it is properly used and fished. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said on the question of pollution, because only last week, in my capacity as president of a local fishing club, I received urgent representations about impending pollution of the River Yeo because a housing estate is to be built without adequate provision for sewerage. Therefore, an important fisheries will be in danger. That is a matter for the Department of the Environment, and we shall have to keep up our pressure on it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) started with a kind of confessional, and I did not know where he would finish. I thought he would talk about otters, but he referred to a gaff, which is comparatively harmless, although tailers should be used much more because they are more humane.
Under the Bill, tickling trout is to be considered a minor offence in future. I hope that anyone here who has tried that method will have found the process rather more rewarding than I have, and I must add that anyone who can catch a trout in that way certainly does not deserve very severe punishment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Dixon) spoke of the Bill as a new charter for fish, which I thought a very good way of putting it. But I was surprised to learn from him that the contribution of Cornwall to the battle of Crécy consisted of salmon no doubt accounting for increased demand for salmon in France these days.
I pay tribute to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T.

Beamish), whose 1965 Act has done so much in this direction already. I am grateful for his support today. I am glad that he mentioned the provision for preventing undesirable species of fish being introduced. As we have seen in forestry with the grey squirrel, a great deal of harm can be done by one or two thoughtless people. There are at least two species of fish which, if introduced, could do a great deal of damage, to the detriment of all fishermen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) raised the very important subject of fish farming, an activity already fairly prevalent, the purpose being chiefly the provision of rainbow trout for the table. I have received letters from further a field, mainly from Scotland, about the possible development of fish farming by enclosing stretches of salt water and rearing salmon to maturity in such artificial areas. It would be premature, I believe, to try in the Bill to anticipate that development, although amending legislation may be necessary later. Such fish farming on a very large scale is still in its very early stages, and is done at present more in Scotland than in England and Wales.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for giving the Government's support to the Bill today and for dealing at such length with the various points. He even went into the rather curious question of the putchers, of which there is a very good illustration in the Bledisloe Report. I am also glad that he spoke about close season sales, something not previously dealt with. He reaffirmed, and I am delighted that he did so, his liking for all birds, although I could not help thinking that some anglers would prefer that they should not always be present on the river bank.
In referring to the provisions of Clause 12, my hon. Friend dealt particularly with the provision relating to "acting together". This is an important matter in these days when gangs can give a good deal of trouble to fisheries and damage the fish, the young fish and stocks generally.
I repeat my view that, although the Bill may be of some help, it does not go nearly as far as it might, and that a lot of the remedies lie in the hands of the Department of the Environment. I hope


that the House can look to that Department for very urgent action on pollution, without which all fishery legislation can be of little value. Meanwhile, we shall await with particular interest the implementation of the recommendations of the Hunter Report on Scottish fishing law I hope it will be found that the Bill is in no way out of step with anything the Government may decide to propose.
I very much hope that the Bill will not be "the one that got away", and that the House will give it the Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

CIVIL EVIDENCE BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. E. L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]

Clause 1

APPLICATION OF PART 1 OF CIVIL EVIDENCE ACT 1968 TO STATEMENTS OF OPINION

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

1.15 p.m.

Mr. Martin McLaren: The Clause provides that statements of opinion made out of court shall be admissible in evidence in the same way as out-of-court statements of fact were made admissible by the Civil Evidence Act, 1968.
We are here mainly concerned with experts' reports. Where the order for directions in an action—that is the procedural stage—provides for expert evidence to be given, the effect of the Clause would be that a party should be able to give notice on disclosing the experts' report to the other party that he intends to rely on the report as evidence at the hearing, and if no counter-notice is served the maker of the report would not need to be called as a witness, with consequential saving of expense and professional time.
The Clause also applies to non-experts' opinions. In traffic cases, for instance,

it is common for a witness to say "There was nothing the driver could do to avoid the accident", or "It was entirely the child's own fault". Hitherto, such statements have been strictly inadmissible because the maker of the statement was giving not evidence of fact but evidence of his opinion. It was often opinion, and also opinion bearing closely on the facts on which the court had to decide whose was the fault in the accident. But we have recognised that in telling his story naturally, the maker of the statement is bound to use such expressions.
Subsection (2) relates to recording expressions of opinion if the record was made by a person acting under duty from information supplied by a person with personal knowledge of the facts stated.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I speak as one who has grave reservations about the merits of the Bill and, indeed suspicions about its motives. By way of parenthesis, perhaps I may ask my hon Friend whether he intends that in future "hearsay" should be spelled "heresay". The word has a different spelling in the" Explanatory Memorandum from that in the Bill.

Mr. McLaren: For that error I apologise.

Mr. Stanbrook: I am gratified to know that we are not to alter the spelling of that ancient and honourable—or, perhaps sometimes dishonourable—word.
I believe that by the Clause we are getting on rather dangerous ground Evidence of fact as presented by hearsay evidence has been legal since the Civil Evidence Act, 1968, but the transition to admitting hearsay evidence where it is of opinion is very big, and something that we should not allow without the greatest possible consideration of its consequence and effects. It seems to me that the effect in courts in future will be for the calling of expert witnesses, all giving their opinions of the matter in issue.
As my hon. Friend has said, in court nowadays one very often gets someone wishing to say that something was not the child's fault. I question whether nowadays it does any harm when that is said and whether the strict rule that one canot give evidence in that form hampers the ascertainment of the truth in any matter.
The point to bear in mind is that evidence of this kind goes directly to the issue which the court has to decide, and one must question whether this is usurping the function in these cases of the court, tribunal or jury in the task of ascertaining the truth. I therefore seriously question whether this House really knows what it is about in agreeing to the admission of opinion evidence where formerly opinion and hearsay evidence has been restricted to matters of fact.
After all, the court is about the ascertainment of the truth, and the truth is the facts. Facts are many-sided. We face this difficulty in many walks of life. Courts are established to ascertain the truth in any particular dispute. However, opinion is as many-sided as there are as many experts qualified to give it.
I feel, therefore, that we are on an entirely different plane in this provision in suggesting that in future hearsay evidence of opinion can play any significant part in our judicial processes. I deplore the introduction of this new feature into our law and would oppose it.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I take this opportunity to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) that some of his alarm is without a great deal of justification.
First, however, I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren) and extend to him the thanks of the Committee for the wisdom which has prompted him to introduce the Bill. This Measure is founded fairly and squarely on the recommendations of the Law Reform Committee. It is therefore, appropriate that I should extend to that Committee as well the thanks of hon. Members for the work it has done on this report as well as on its earlier reports.
The Bill embodies the conclusions contained in the Law Reform Committee's Fourth Report, the fourth of four resulting from the reference to that Committee by my noble Friend Lord Dilhorne in September, 1964, of the question of the law relating to civil evidence.
The Law Reform Committee's first three reports were embodied in the Civil Evidence Act, 1968. It would be

be doing an injustice to the quality of that Act to say that it brought a revolutionary transformation over the way in which our courts conduct their business. There are many people who might take the view that the rules of evidence are of more relevance to the weight of evidence in civil proceedings without a jury than to admissibility—when one remembers that matters are being considered by experienced trial judges with knowledge of the kind of objects which the rules of evidence are designed to achieve—but that is a general matter to which I shall return later in our proceedings.
I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington that the Law Reform Committee comprises 15 legal luminaries of great distinction, none of them by temperament prone to recommend the kind of dangerous or alarming measures which might arouse suspicion on the scale he indicated.
The recommendations contained in Clause 1 were unanimous recommendations of the Law Reform Committee. To allay any alarm, I might mention that the provisions which arise from the 1968 Act and the rules made under it will still apply under Clause 1 of this Bill, whereby a party intending to tender in evidence a hearsay document containing an expression of opinion will be obliged to give notice of that intention to the other party, and the other party can, by serving a counter-notice, require the attendance of the witness whose evidence would otherwise be admitted by means of hearsay.
It is clear, therefore, that the revolution, if revolution it be, is modest. Any party who feels himself adversely affected can always take steps to prevent what my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington fears, and, on that basis, I recommend the Clause to the Committee.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I echo what the Solicitor-General said by way of congratulation and thanks both to his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren) and to the distinguished members of the Law Reform Committee, whose last report is the basis of this Bill.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) was not being entirely fair to Parliament in suggesting that Parliament did not quite know what it was doing. Those of us who have read the report produced by these distinguished


gentlemen can hardly fail to be aware of what we are doing because the report puts it so clearly and lucidly.
I echo also the views expressed by the Solicitor-General on this matter. Like him, I would widen rather than narrow the field of the admissibility of evidence, and I would prefer, like him, that matters such as the question of hearsay should go to weight rather than to admissibility. The hon. and learned Gentleman indicated his intention to return to this subject later, and I will follow his example.
I question the use of the terms "qualified" and "expert evidence" in the Bill. I can find no definition of them in the Measure, although I may have overlooked some reference to them. The report deals with these matters in the paragraphs following paragraph 19. The conclusion I draw from those paragraphs is that the Law Reform Committee had in mind that these should not be terms of art, that a person should be regarded as qualified whom the court considers to be qualified. There seems to be no magic in the term "expert evidence". It is simply evidence related to the technicalities of a subject in which people may have more or less learning.
If so, I can find no place in the Bill which states that it is for the court always to decide whether evidence is expert and whether a person is or is not qualified to give expert evidence. I trust that I shall be corrected if I am wrong. It would be a useful piece of information to have.

1.30 p.m.

Mr. McLaren: I endorse what the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) has said, that it would normally be for the court at the beginning to review the qualifications of the person putting himself forward to give expert evidence, and it would be for the court to consider whether, by his experience of and study in a specialised subject matter, such a person was to be trusted in giving to the court specialised evidence of that sort. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for raising that point. Those concerned with the Bill in another place may well think fit to add a helpful definition.
I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) to consider that the strict rules of evidence in English

law date from the days when normally all cases were tried before juries, and relatively ill-educated and ill-experienced juries at that. The policy of the law was that such juries might easily be led astray by evidence at second hand, as hearsay evidence is. In these days when trial by jury in civil cases has practically disappeared, is it seriously to be argued that learned judges will be led astray by written reports that they may read?

Mr. Stanbrook: The danger about hearsay evidence is not that of misleading the tribunal, whether it be a judge or a jury. It is that hearsay evidence may be fabricated evidence, just as misleading possibly in either case. That is the danger we must seek to guard against.

Mr. McLaren: I should have thought that judges would be well able to look after that and keep a sharp eye on the value of the evidence before them. Nor is it seriously to be supposed that if a lay witness gives his evidence from opinion in an accident case by saying that he thinks it was all the fault of one side the judge will necessarily allow himself to be swayed by that evidence. It will merely be a case of the witness trying to convey to the judge what he saw and thought.

The Solicitor-General: Paragraph 19 of the report is indeed the reference, as mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin). As I understand it, the first sentence sets out the state of the common law now: 
It is also for the judge to determine whether the expert whose testimony is sought to be adduced possesses the knowledge or experience needed to make his evidence of assistance in enabling the judge to form a correct opinion on the matter in issue.
In other words, it is for the judge to determine whether the expert is suitably qualified to give evidence in the case before him.
The Bill, certainly Clause 1, does nothing to disturb that position, save in Clause 4, which varies what may be a former rule limiting the qualifications of an expert on foreign law, basically to bring it into line with what applies in the rest of the law. What is there set out,
a person who is suitably qualified to do so on account of his knowledge or experience


is merely a statement of the generality of the law about the qualifications of experts. I hope that that answers the point.

Question put and agreed.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

RULES OF COURT WITH RESPECT TO EXPERT REPORTS AND ORAL EXPERT EVIDENCE.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. McLaren: This Clause gives power to make rules of court with respect to expert reports and expert oral evidence. The rules may govern the procedure for putting in evidence experts' reports and may provide for the compulsory disclosure of such reports, and may go on to prohibit the calling of expert oral evidence where there has been a failure to disclose a report.
The Report of the Law Reform Committee recommended that compulsory pre-trial disclosure of expert reports should be limited to cases where the report was expected to be based on agreed facts and that, conversely, compulsory disclosure should not be called for where that was not the case. In particular, the Committee thought that medical reports should be subject to compulsory disclosure and that the onus of showing why there should not be disclosure should lie on the party seeking to avoid it.
Yet there would be certain exceptions. There would not be disclosure of medical reports in actions of medical negligence, nor where the plaintiff was accused of malingering. The rules would provide that a party should be able to require the attendance at the trial of the opposite party's expert so that he could be cross-examined. If that was desired, that witness could be secured. In non-medical cases, as opposed to medical ones, the onus should be on the party requiring disclosure of the report.
In all these matters there would be an overriding discretion to the trial judge to admit evidence notwithstanding any failure to comply with the rules. These rules would apply equally to arbitrations

and references and to any tribunals in which the strict rules of evidence apply. The sanction for failure to disclose would be to prohibit the calling of the oral evidence at the trial.
To sum up, the effect of the rules of court which might be properly made under this Clause would be, first, that no expert evidence should be admitted except as provided in the order for directions; second, that the expert should not be allowed to depart orally at the trial from the compulsorily disclosed report; and, third, that the court should always retain an overriding discretion of what evidence to hear.

Mr. Stanbrook: The Clause is the most substantial, perhaps the most important, and, from my point of view, the most objectionable part of the Bill. It provides for the compulsory simultaneous disclosure of expert evidence. Significantly, the minority Report of the Law Reform Committee deals with this problem. It is, perhaps, immensely significant, notwithstanding what my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General said about the composition of that Committee—I do not wish to sound irreverent about its members—that those who signed the minority Report—that is, those members of the Committee who did not agree with this substantial change in our practice—included two of the most distinguished barristers practising in the courts today.
As the Committee was dominated, perhaps not in numbers but in wealth of experience and knowledge, by judges, that fact is of great significance. The practical application of the solution to a problem like this is of much greater importance to practitioners than to judges.
I find the minority Report impressive, especially in its argument that what is being brought about in this Clause is a fundamental change. I wish to quote from the Report of the Law Reform Committee, paragraph 16, page 45:
…the change is far from being merely procedural. At present a report obtained by a party is privileged from production. The proposal is that a party should be compelled to waive his privilege if he wants to call evidence. This goes a long way to the abolition, in so far as it relates to expert evidence, of a privilege which is fundamental to the adversary system and has stood unchallenged and substantially uncriticised for a very long time.


Furthermore, the special position of the defendant must be considered. At present he is entitled to do his best to destroy the case against him, deciding only at the close of the plaintiff's case whether he will call any, and if so, what, evidence. Under the majority proposals"—
the proposals contained in the report signed by a majority of members of the Committee—
a defendant's position will be radically changed if an order is made In order to preserve his right to call evidence on a matter of expertise he will have to disclose his expert's report. The plaintiff's expert will then be forewarned to meet the cross-examination. Some may consider that this is desirable. Whether it is desirable or not, it is a fundamental change and should be recognised as such. To speak of holding the balance equally does not advance matters. Plaintiff and defendant are in different positions. At present the defendant has the right mentioned.
In future, he will not.
Those distinguished authors of that minority Report point out not only the fundamental nature of the change which the Clause seeks to make but the impracticability of introducing such a novel and fundamentally changed procedure into our system. On page 46, paragraph 18 of the report they quote the questions which the master or the district registrar dealing with the summons for directions will have to ask himself. They quote those questions as:
Is it expected to be based on agreed facts?
Is it expected to be based on facts ascertainable by the expert himself with reasonable certainty by the exercise of his own powers of observation?
Is it expected to be based on facts which are common knowledge by reason of having been published in professional books or journals?
Is it expected to be based on facts observed in the past by the expert in the course of his professional studies or practice?
Is it expected to be based on a version of facts in dispute supplied by the instructing part?
They go on to say in paragraph 19:
We are at a loss to understand how a master, or a registrar, can possibly reach a conclusion upon such matters. He will not have the report before him nor will he know by whom it is going to be made. For a master to say 'I expect that the report when made, and by whomsoever it is made, will or will not be based on agreed facts, or facts ascertainable with reasonable certainty by the expert himself by the exercise of his own powers of observation, or on facts which have been published in professional books or journals,

or on facts observed in the past by the expert', can be no more than uninformed crystal gazing.
They end their criticisms of what amounts to this Clause with these words:
It is in our opinion an impossible task.
That, I would have thought, was a sufficient condemnation of what is planned to be achieved by this Clause. I believe that it is advancing a rather dangerous tendency, a tendency to reduce the issue which a court has to decide to as narrow a compass as possible.

1.45 p.m.

Many people will say that that is a very good and desirable thing, in that we must try as far as possible to relieve courts from unnecessary work and thereby help to reduce delay and costs. But I hope we shall never reach the stage—and unless we think about the problem now we may well reach that stage one day—when a trial can be conducted almost wholly on paper. That is the tendency, I believe, which is apparent from this Clause. We are on a slippery slope by admitting opinions and hearsay evidence as to facts. We are pushing ourselves further down that slope by agreeing to this sort of approach to evidence which ought to be produced at the trial without such compulsions on the parties.

I question whether the pre-trial publication of all prosecution evidence in criminal trials has been beneficial and in the public interest and has assisted in the administration of justice in this country. I accept that it is a practice of some long standing, but because of this apparent desire to give a defendant in a criminal trial as much advance warning as possible of the charge which he has to answer, we have reached the stage nowadays when the whole prosecution case is revealed to a defendant, in modern circumstances because of the conditions in the courts and long lists, well in advance of the trial.

Mr. Ernle Money: Will my hon. Friend accept that, although it may be highly desirable, it is much more honoured in principle than in observance? Surely all that a prosecution has to do is to provide enough evidence to make a prima facie case on which to achieve the committal of the defendant and get the defendant in front of a higher court.


In long cases notices of additional evidence flow throughout the entire course of a prosecution case.

Mr. Stanbrook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. That is just the point, that the evidence admitted at a preliminary hearing of a criminal case for the purpose of committing the defendant to trial is necessary only in order to establish a prima facie case against the defendant.

Mr. McLaren: As this is a civil evidence Bill, should we not confine ourselves to civil proceedings and leave on one side criminal proceedings?

Mr. Stanbrook: I will do my best. I just want to reply to this point because we are dealing with the publication of evidence before a trial. That applies equally to both criminal and civil cases. While the theory of the production of evidence for committal for trial is that sufficient should be produced for the purpose of establishing a prima facie case, in practice because of our devotion to this principle of fairness to the defendant—and I cannot very well argue against that—the prosecution tends to produce all its evidence for that purpose. I accept that in very long trials and big cases sometimes a considerable amount of work is done by way of notices of additional evidence, but great attention is given to the problem of assisting the other party to the dispute by presenting all the case and the evidence against him as early as possible. I question whether this has in practice been in the public interest. Therefore, by introducing a similar principle into civil evidence we are perhaps promoting something which will have highly undesirable consequences.

Mr. Silkin: Is there not a clear distinction between the point which the hon. Gentleman makes—I am not in any sense saying that I agree with what he has just said—and the effect of these provisions, inasmuch as under these provisions relating to technical evidence both parties will have to disclose their technical case at the same time? That is quite the reverse of the situation which the hon. Gentleman has described.

Mr. Stanbrook: It is not entirely the reverse because, save in the case of an

alibi warning, the defence in a criminal trial is under no obligation nowadays to reveal its hand. Under what is intended here—that is, a reciprocal exchange of expert evidence—the principle remains the same. Indeed, if one thinks not so much of advantage given to one side alone but of the undesirability of stating established positions before trial, injustice will be done to both sides in future in that they will be prevented from handling their evidence in the way which the progress of the case would perhaps justify.
It remains true, I believe, that the way in which this principle has been operated in criminal proceedings has enabled many criminals, by the use of dishonest evidence, to get away with their crimes.
I have referred to the question of an alibi, and again I take my analogy from criminal proceedings, with which I am more conversant than I am with civil proceedings. The requirement as to disclosure of an alibi by a defendant within seven days of committal has not always worked fairly, in that stupid or ignorant yet innocent persons may well have been penalised by it.
I do not consider that it is in the public interest for us to require parties to a dispute, whether civil or criminal, to establish their positions and to give their evidence beforehand. For that reason, in accord with the sentiments expressed in the Minority Report of the Law Reform Committee, I believe that the Clause is undesirable and should not be passed.

Mr. Money: I apologise to the Committee for having missed the opening of the debate. I was glad to be here, however, to listen to the closely reasoned speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), although I disagreed with the views which he advanced.
One of the profound advantages introduced by the Bill, and in particular by Clauses 2 and 3, will be to tend to diminish the long-standing scandal—I use the word advisedly—of the way in which the expert witness is treated by our courts. I have had considerable correspondence both with my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and with the Lord Chancellor's Department on


behalf of, to take one example, the British Medical Association in my constituency.
I am sure that every lawyer who has had to deal regularly with litigation in the civil courts have been worried by the way in which busy professional men—I am thinking especially of doctors, and their patients too—are put to considerable inconvenience, expense and often, in the day-to-day running of their practice arrangements for their patients, real hardship and disadvantage by the difficulties caused by the listing and hearing of cases in the Queen's Bench Division.
It is true that great steps have been taken in the listing of cases, and every effort has been made by those responsible for the administration of justice to try to bring matters into line as far as possible. But the great hold-up has come in our existing practice so far as it relates to a full oral hearing of expert testimony.
Most young barristers have had a good deal of experience of appearing before a master or a district registrar, trying to arrange, by the making of appointments, just how much expert evidence should be called. It always struck me when I attended that sort of hearing how much better it would be if one were able, in effect, to agree the whole of the evidence at that point. Steps have been taken to this end by the system of voluntary disclosure, which the profession has, I think, come round to, for the acceptance of expert testimony and the agreeing of bundles of medical documents, for example. This has saved a great deal of time, but the fact still remains that vast amounts of unnecessary evidence are led and time is unnecessarily taken up because one side has been unsure of what the other side would produce, and it has been a question of dotting i's and crossing t's long before the hearing of the case.
I hope that, on that aspect of the matter, the Bill will make it possible to save a great deal of the time of medical men and other professional men who act as expert witnesses, while at the same time avoiding the long and embarrassing cross-examination which sometimes takes place because a defendant's counsel does not really know why it has been necessary to have the expert on the other side and he puts lots of searching questions to him in the vague hope that somehow

this will do his client some good. One is reminded of the lengths to which this sort of thing can go by the famous story of the distinguished expert giving oral evidence who became rather irritated with what was happening and went straight ahead on the lines of his proof. When stopped short by counsel, who reminded him that he had not answered the question, he replied that, in fact, he was trying to answer the next.
So often, the giving of expert evidence becomes almost a "ritual fire dance" in our civil courts, and I am sure that many judges must have——

Mr. Stanbrook: That practice will not be obviated by the Clause. Proofs will still be exchanged, evidence will be disclosed, but the list of supplementary questions and the answers thereto will remain with the professional advisers, with the result that it may well be necessary for evidence to come out in court in just the same way, with just the same fishing questions being asked. All we are doing is adding to the paper, without reducing the actual amount of court work.

Mr. Money: I take that point, but, with respect, that is exactly what High Court masters are there for. One of the advantages of the procedure envisaged in the Bill is that it will put into the hands of High Court masters the responsibility of seeing that just that kind of evidence is agreed, so that large amounts of exploratory cross-examination will become unnecessary.
2.0 p.m.
The Clause will have considerable value for the simple or uninstructed plaintiff. We hear specifically, not necessarily in personal injury cases only but in issues like noise nuisance actions and other issues where a high degree of scientific expertise may be involved, of counsel suddenly finding themselves faced on the morning of the hearing with a vast amount of highly impressive sounding evidence which they have not been able to anticipate and which, in the absence of an expert witness of their own anticipating exactly what would be said, they are not really in a position to answer. We know only too well that, however sympathetic the courts may be, the chance of getting an adjournment in these cicumstances, or the chance of being able to call evidence at a later stage,


even though the evidence which has come up cannot be anticipated on the pleadings, weighs the scales very much in favour of whoever can afford to keep the most expensive expert evidence hanging around for the longest time.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Is it not even worse? I appreciate that the hon. Member's point comprehended the situation but is it not even worse where the evidence comes from the defending side after the plaintiff has called his case, having no idea that this kind of technical question will be raised?

Mr. Money: I accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. In particular, the difficulty that arises here is that our forms of pleading tend to be overtly simplistic, though in fact highly sophisticated, as opposed to the normal form of pleading which exists in most Continental jurisdictions. After what the House has suffered within the last few weeks I do not want to go into the minuitiae of the differences between our law and that of some of our nearest Continental neighbours. But one great advantage that many Continental countries seem to have is that the pleading is a straightforward narrative setting out just what the plaintiff's case is, just what the dependant's case in and just what the facts are that support each.
Not only are the pleadings in our courts in nearly all cases, and certainly in High Court cases, a cabalistic ritual of considerable antiquity aimed on the basis of producing a system of the utmost complication by which fine semantic points can be scored. Although they deal with contentions of law of considerable complexity they fail to disclose freely the nature of the factual evidence to which the defendant would have to reply. Very often it is extremely difficult for counsel to anticipate within the rules of evidence, from such bald statements as they are able to get by a summons for directions or by further particulars of pleadings, just what facts or expert evidence are behind the pleadings.
I fully accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said about that. For these reasons I would support Clause 2 as it stands on the basis, as I have respectfully said before in some of our debates to which my hon. and learned

Friend the Solicitor-General has shown a most sympathetic ear, that there is strong feeling in the country that there are two different levels in a case. There is the lawyers' understanding of the case and there is the parties' understanding. Anything that goes to make the law simpler and fairer for the parties and for anyone else is very much to be welcomed.

The Solicitor-General: It is right to acknowledge that Clause 2 contains the one recommendation about which there was a division of opinion in the Law Reform Committee, and it is, therefore, right that there should be some discussion about the two opposing views.
The Committee must, therefore, welcome the contrasting contributions by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) and my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), who stated the opposing sides of the argument. Before I turn to that point I will say one thing about the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich; namely, what he described as the scandal of the way in which expert witnesses were treated in being required to attend courts at short notice, sometimes to linger there for long periods and to suffer much disruption of their practices. But it is worth remembering that expert witnesses are not the only people who have had to endure that kind of thing.
I was a member of the Committee appointed by Justice, under the chairmanship of Mr. Philip Kimber, which made recommendations on the trial of accident cases, and we drew attention to this point some years ago. The Report of the Committee on Personal Injuries Litigation—Cmnd. 3691—also made the same point, and the Beeching Royal Commission drew attention to it in no uncertain fashion. There can be no doubt that those responsible for administering the legal system are aware of its importance. It is worth making the point today that the volume of complaints about this kind of thing happening has already appeared to diminish sharply and substantially as a result of the early days of the operation of the Courts Act. If the practice continues I hope it will not for much longer, but I believe it is probably impossible, even now, to refer to this kind of thing as a scandal. There


have been and are substantial improvements, but it is right that my hon. Friend should have drawn attention to it.
I come to a matter which is more germane to the Clause; namely, the compulsory disclosure of expert evidence in certain circumstances. We must remember that the proposals are confined to civil proceedings and to expert evidence. I would suggest that some of the points that my hon. Friend made, although in part relevant, did not bear closely on these provisions. The provisions are expressly designed to diminish the area of battle, to disclose the hands that are going to be played, and to give people reasonable notice of the case they are meant to meet so as to speed up the process of litigation.
If we must discuss this matter within the rather narrow confines of the law of evidence as it now exists and within the narrow confines of the proposals contained in the Bill, it would be difficult to take very far the proposition advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich that the procedure in our courts is even overtly simplistic. At one point many decades ago some people set their hands to the task of producing an apparently simple set of rules for the courts, but they are not very simplistic overtly.

Mr. Money: I chose my words carefull. The word I used was "simplistic" and not "simple". I intended to convey that the use of a few words, overtly simplistic as such, could in fact cover many of the matters that were complained of by the hon. and learned Member not of disclosing the basis of what the real case was but of using the time-honoured ritual used in the courts for many years.

The Solicitor-General: I take the point and I am merely underlining my hon. Friend's approach, that we do not work in a practically simple, simplified or simplistic world in the courts and that, as this Measure will help to make it simpler, all hon. Members of this Committee will welcome it.
There was disagreement on the Law Reform Committe, which was comprised solely of distinguished practitioners in both parts of the legal profession. The majority decision deserves some respect. The majority numbered 12 and comprised

all the academic members, all the judges—and judges were, after all, practitioners once, some of them not very long ago—one practising member of distinction of the Bar and one practising solicitor of distinction. The balance of argument, if one is to judge by counting heads and distinction, probably lies in favour of the majority, which is no doubt why my hon. Friend has introduced the Bill in this form.
It would not be right for the Committee to be left with the impression that the privileged nature of the reports in respect of which compulsory disclosure might be ordered has, as the minority said, been unchallenged or substantially uncriticicised. The proposals contained in the Clause and in this part of the report first saw the light of day in an official capacity in the Final Report of the Ever shed Committee, Command Paper 7788, at paragraphs 289–291. They were repeated in respect of medical evidence in the report of the Winn Committee at paragraphs 279–283. Like most proposals for law reform, they have already been the subject of deliberate consideration for decades rather than years, and it is right for the Committee to approach them with this in mind.
It may be of some use for those who have to consider this matter here and in another place if I remind them of the balance of the arguments put forward. The minority put forward a number of different arguments. It asserted, first, that no significant amount of time was wasted at the trial in giving evidence on non-controversial matters; secondly, that prior notice of the contents of another party's expert report would make it easier for an incompetent expert to conceal his incompetence by enabling him to pick up points that he might have overlooked; thirdly, that, under the present system anyway, medical reports are often agreed without the need for compulsory disclosure, so that the procedure suggested was unnecessary; fourthly, that the procedure for compulsory disclosure would tend to be more expensive because of the additional care given to the preparation of the reports that would be disclosed; and, fifthly, that no general conclusion should be drawn from the fact that disclosure takes place already in respect of motor engineers' reports, restrictive practice cases and patent cases.
On the other side of the argument the majority asserted, more compactly, that compulsory disclosure would, first, reduce the matters of expertise at issue between the parties; secondly assist the achieving of a settlement or the agreement of reports; thirdly, enable each expert to prove more helpfully and thoroughly his evidence on the matters which, after the exchange, were clearly at issue; and, finally, that the practice already exists in some cases and no criticism of that has been made.
That is the balance of the argument. The Bill is before the Committee and represents the majority view. Speaking for the Government, I would say that it has been helpful to have the views of hon. Members on the way in which the arguments should be compared.

2.15 p.m.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: This is the most controversial Clause in the Bill, and it is only right that I should say a word or two in view of the forceful minority report.
The Solicitor-General referred to the majority and spoke of one practising member of the Bar. I think I am right in saying that there were three practising members of the Bar, although some were also academics. We are not dealing with this as a question of numbers. The Solicitor-General clearly and succinctly put the points on each side. I have carefully read, not once but several times, the minority report, not only because of its distinguished parentage but also because the minority report points out that the Bar Council and the Law Society were on this occasion united in taking the same view as the minority.
In those circumstances it is right to search the arguments produced by the minority to see whether they really overbear the majority report. I have formed the view that the majority is right. Pleadings have always been said to have the purpose of narrowing down the issues so that when the case comes to court the court and the parties are fully aware of what is the real dispute. In these days when technical matters involving cases become more complicated it seems that the pleadings very often do not succeed in doing that. The minority recognised this to some extent when it said in paragraph 23:

In our opinion, if it is necessary to do anything to ensure that the issues are properly limited and defined before trial, the proper way to do this is to encourage the giving of full particulars of pleadings.
That has been tried to its limit but still we get the situation which the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) described whereby parties can be taken by surprise and a great deal of evidence can be given, unnecessarily as it turns out, because of the failure of the pleading system when we come to technicalities to ensure that the issues are narrowed down and clear to all parties by the time trial is reached.
When I used to do negligence cases I was essentially a plaintiff's counsel and that may have coloured my view. I can recall many cases when the plaintiff gave an account of what he believed, rightly or wrongly, to have happened. He was cross-examined not on technicalities but on facts, often briefly, and then the defendant produced an expert witness who sought to prove that the version given by the plaintiff could not have happened because of the technicalities of the matter. This was without any warning to the plaintiff.
Of course, it can happen the other way round. I have no doubt that by, as it were, extending the system into the realm of the technical, the expert, in the way suggested, by compelling, in appropriate circumstances—not always but subject to reservations published in the report—the parties to disclose their technical evidence in advance, the result will certainly be not only that a great deal of expert time will be saved but that the time of the courts will be saved and the time of all those to whom the Solicitor-General referred will be saved in their not having to hang around while expert witnesses are subjected to long cross-examinations. What is most important of all is that justice will be more open and the court and the parties will know more precisely what is in issue in the case.

Mr. Money: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that one area in particular with regard to medical evidence where this aspect will be of great importance is in itself a sometimes rather obscure area—where judges have to determine whether a plaintiff who is suffering from an undoubted medical condition for which no immediate medical


reasons can be found is a malingerer or is suffering from something which has become so real in his own mind that it is a genuine cause for damage?

Mr. Silkin: I agree that that kind of situation is familiar to practitioners and judges—since so many cases these days are personal injury cases—and that it is among the most difficult of all. It seems to me to be of every advantage that the cards should be on the table for all to see when the trial starts and not be revealed in the course of it.

Mr. Ian Percival: I apologise for having arrived at such a late stage. I hope that I shall be acquitted of any apparent discourtesy, but the delay is because I have been applying the rules of evidence and the like elsewhere. My late arrival is a great disadvantage, which I recognise at once, in that I do not know what has been said thus far, so if I am making a point or points which have already been made frequently, I apologise to the Committee for the inconvenience.
I take up the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) about having the cards on the table. It is an attractive phrase, but it grossly over-simplifies legal procedure. It is correct to say that there is a tendency for the pleadings to fail in their objective. That may sometimes be because one side is endeavouring to use the rules to make sure that the pleadings do not succeed in achieving their objective. That may be a perfectly legitimate objective. But in so far as a party succeeds in that objective it is usually because the other party has not done what he should have done to get the position clear. In other words, although I appreciate that there is a problem, I do not think it arises out of the rules and that it necessarily calls for any change of the rules. Like so many other problems, it arises largely from the way people work the system rather than from the system itself.
In this sort of matter I am in favour of the procedures being such as to enable a party who is determined to see that these matters are clarified before the trial, to achieve that, and such as to enable the court to make such orders, as are necessary to oblige a party trying to confuse or hide the issues to disclose or clarify. But that is different from saying that the

evidence should be laid on the table as well. It is possible that the doctrine which the hon. and learned Gentleman advances about putting the cards on the table, which superficially sounds so attractive, could be extended unduly if we made compulsory disclosure of evidence to this extent.
I am not at all enthusiastic about the Clause. I have chosen those words carefully because I am not going to oppose it or take the matter to a vote or anything of that kind. I take the view of those who made the dissenting note, but I am not suggesting, any more than they were, that because a minority of the Committee or maybe a minority in this Committee has a different view that is a good enough reason for rejecting the recommendation. That is how the minority put its point at the beginning of its dissenting note.
I rise to express my lack of enthusiasm for this reason: I hope that when the rule-making power is exercised—that is all it is because we do not yet know what the rules will be—those who have to make the rules will be cautious about the extent to which they make rules which might introduce big changes in practice. Contrary to the experience of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I cannot remember any case in which difficulty was experienced in connection with expert reports which was not resolved before the trial. There are other means of securing disclosure and agreement about expert evidence than getting orders of the court.
The hon. and learned Gentleman and everyone else who has practised in this branch knows as well as I do that there are many steps one can take other than making application to the court—for example, by putting one's opponent in the position of either telling one what it is all about or having orders for costs made against him. It is standard form from my exerience to ask the other side to disclose reports in any case where there is any suggestion that there might be reports. This applies not only in medical cases but in engineering, building, shipbuilding cases and the like. It is true that there are cases in which the plaintiff, perhaps because his case is not as strong as had been made out before, or perhaps simply because someone is not getting on with the case, declines to say exactly what are the injuries he has suffered and the like. Sometimes this is for


the very good reason that he does not yet know. Sometimes in a personal injury case for a long period the doctors, with the best will in the world, are unable to say, although they can say what the visible injuries are, what the prognosis is and what is the likelihood of the development of this or that.
Sometimes it is the defendant who is delaying, perhaps by declining to supply reports of the doctors who have carried out such inspections as have been allowed; sometimes he uses other means. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that it is the experience of practitioners that there are a good many weapons already to hand for dealing with that kind of delay, particularly the robust summons for directions by which Masters of the Supreme Court now have substantial power to require someone to do something or, on his failing to do it, to make it expensive for him in the matter of costs.
2.30 p.m.
I have said what I have said so far in relation to medical reports because that is the example in which expert evidence most commonly arises. I bear in mind what even the minority said in the 17th report—that it would not object to there being some extension of the powers relating to disclosure of medical reports. I subscribe to that view despite what I have said, despite the means that already exist for finding out what the other side is saying, because there are cases when people are unduly awkward or delay unduly, and, like the minority, I am not in the least averse to there being further powers in that respect.
But I do not think much more is needed. What I am concerned about is the apparent acceptance that it is desirable that other kinds of expert report should come under some compulsory process, and not only that this is desirable but that it is workable. It is in this respect that I was most impressed by what those who signed the dissenting note had to say, because they are essentially practitioners. I hope that the Committee will always bear in mind that there is a world of difference between the theory of the law and the practice. This is true in other matters, and it is no less true in the law. I therefore hope that whoever has to exercise the power given by

Clause 2 will, in so far as they propose to introduce new powers by rules for the compulsory disclosure of reports other than medical reports, tread warily.
There are two things of which we have to be careful. One is that we must not keep messing about with the law. We ought to make changes only where they will be of consequence and value. It is difficult enough keeping up with the changes in the law as they are being constantly propounded by Parliament, and it is also difficult to keep up with the changes in practice. But what I am concerned about more particularly is that whoever has to make these rules should pay, as I am confident they will, the closest regard to the dissenting note by the minority, because it is directed towards what I regard as the most important aspect of the matter—the workability of the rules.
I have often said that it is easy to have a good idea, but that the real question is whether one can put it into practice. Many good ideas cannot be put into practice. Much more important than having a good idea is ensuring that what Parliament does to produce laws is workable. While making it clear that I am not opposed in general to my hon. Friend's Bill, or seeking to delay it, or to stop it from getting on the Statute Book, I sound that note of warning, echoing what was said in the dissenting report, because workability is the all important factor in the law, as in everything else.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT OPINION AND CERTAIN EXPRESSIONS OF NON-EXPERT OPINION.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. McLaren: The Clause is declaratory of the existing common law as to the admissibility of opinion evidence. It also extends the admissibility of such evidence in the case of non-expert evidence.
As hitherto, an expert may give evidence of inferences that he draws or


opinions that he forms, and the non-expert is to be allowed to make statements of opinion if those statements are a way of conveying relevant facts which he personally has perceived. An example that we have considered before is that of the witness in a car case who says "There is nothing he could have done to avoid the accident." What such a witness is, in fact, saying is that what he saw was that the car was very near when the pedestrian stepped off the pavement.
Although there may be an alteration of the strict principle that witnesses must state facts and not opinions, the deviation is more apparent than real and it will be more helpful than damaging.

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend said that the Clause was declaratory of the common law relating to the evidence of expert witnesses. That is almost entirely the case, and it certainly is the case that the most important change made by the Clause is that in subsection (2), dealing with the admissibility of en passant expert opinions by witnesses giving their account of relevant facts.
But there is a change in respect of the admissibility of expert opinion by expert witnesses. Up to this point in time, although an expert has been able to express his opinion on almost every issue that arises in a case, he has not been allowed to express his opinion on the issue in question. That rule has been honoured more in the breach than in the observance, but, strictly, the rule is that one may not in terms ask an expert medical witness "Was the defendant doctor negligent?" because that has been the issue which the judge has had to decide. The effect of subsection (1) together with subsection (3) is to set aside that rule and make that kind of question admissible.
The opinion of the expert on the issue which the judge has to try is, of course, not decisive, but it is a factor that the judge himself may take into account. That change arises from the fact that subsection (1) says that the opinion of an expert on any relevant matter on which he is equipped to give expert evidence shall be admissible. Subsection (3) defines "relevant matter" as an issue in the proceedings in question. This is the change made by the Clause

in addition to that so clearly explained by my hon. Friend.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I am extremely glad that the Solicitor-General has clarified that, because it is a matter of great importance. The only thing that concerned me about the Clause was that the principle contained in the clarification note by the Solicitor-General has not been extended to evidence generally. The 17th Report of the Law Reform Committee points out that what is described as the ordinary man when giving evidence is frustrated if he is confined within the narrow bounds of our rules of evidence and finds it extremely difficult to give a spontaneous account of events which he has seen or heard without in the course of it expressing some opinion such as that the child ran out and the defendant did not have a chance to avoid hitting her.
The report goes on to say—and this is the effect of subsection (2)—that all the members of the Committee—there is no dispute about this part of the report—would accept that such evidence should be given by a witness, but would not accept that a direct question should be asked of the witness on the witness's opinion of a matter in issue, because that would be an encroachment on the decision-making function which is the judge's alone.
This encroachment has been accepted in the case of the expert witness. I cannot see what problem there would be in allowing a witness to state the facts and, when he has finished stating the facts in examination-in-chief, the question then being put to him: "Did you think that any party was blameworthy; what was your opinion?", because often the answer can produce considerable enlightenment on the value of the evidence and the facts to which the witness has deposed. One knows that a judge will not be prejudiced by such an answer. He will give it what weight it deserves, and it may help him to form an impression.
However, I understand that subsection (2) is deliberately phrased in a way which would not permit that. It is a step forward. I do not oppose the Clause on that account.

Mr. Stanbrook: I agree that the Clause is relatively innocuous, but I should like


to ask a question about it. Does it mean that in future it will be admissible for any witness in a civil case, for example, involving an accident, to say that someone present at the scene was drunk? Heretofore I think that such a statement of opinion by a lay person would not have been admissible; he would have been required only to say whether the person concerned was staggering about, whether his eyes were glazed, whether his speech was thick and so on. In other words, evidence would be produced in a factual way which, to anyone listening, would be 99 per cent. conclusive of the drunkenness of the person concerned. I understand that that is the present position.
In future, because of the operation of the Clause, will it be permissible for a person to say "So-and-so was drunk" and for the other side to say "That is your opinion, now admissible because of Section 3 of the Civil Evidence Act, but on what do you base your opinion?" No doubt it will then be necessary for the witness to give his reasons for arriving at that opinion. Is that a fair summary of the position as it will be in future as a result of the change which the Clause will effect?

Mr. McLaren: The courts apply some common sense in these matters. When the court hears a witness say "He was drunk", the court and everyone else knows that the witness means he saw that the man appeared to be unsteady on his feet and gave all the appearances of being drunk. As in the case I described of the road accident, the witness who says he could not have avoided the accident means that he did not have sufficient time as the vehicles were too close. As I see it, we have been discussing these examples on the same footing, and the short answer to my hon. Friend is "Yes, that would be allowed".

2.45 p.m.

Mr. Percival: Some interesting questions have been raised by my hon. Friend. I shall not oppose this Clause either. However, life is not quite so simple as my hon. Friend suggests on this or any other point. We may find that a number of entirely new and interesting questions arise. At present, if a question which is asked is the very question that

the judge has to decide, or one of those questions, it is inadmissible for that reason. In future, it will not be inadmissible for that reason. It will be admissible provided that it is a question that the expert is qualified to answer. So we shall have the interesting question: what is the witness's qualification, and does his qualification cover an expertise which is relevant in answering that question?
I believe that the answer lies in what my hon. Friend said about common sense in replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). I do not believe that changes like this are necessary. The elasticity and common sense which are such common form in the common law courts have been adequate to deal with all the sort of points about which we are now talking on the Clause.
I rise only to say that no one should think that the matter is quite as simple as the promoter of the Bill suggested. We know what we mean, I expect, but we are not always right in thinking that we know what we mean. We do not always put into words what we think we mean. The one thing that we do not mean to do is to provide any further points to be the basis of further leading authorities in the courts, but we are not always right about that. It could be that we will have some further interesting litigation on this Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

EVIDENCE OF FOREIGN LAW

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. McLaren: The Clause will interest anyone who has studied the fascinating subject of private international law. It is designed to facilitate the proof of foreign law in English courts. Foreign law has always been treated as a matter of fact which has to be proved like any other question of fact. The Clause provides that a finding of foreign law, if reliably recorded in citable form should be admissible in subsequent civil proceedings as prima facie evidence that the foreign law


is in accordance with that finding. At present it cannot be inferred from previous decision with the result that it has to be proved over and over again in each separate case. This is expensive and time-consuming. The previous finding is not to be regarded as conclusive, because one may always suppose that it may have been wrong or, alternatively, that the foreign law may since have been changed.
The second provision in the Clause abolishes the restrictive rule that only those who are qualified to practise in the courts of the foreign country may give expert evidence of that foreign law. That rule derives from a decision of the courts in 1850. Instead, the test proposed in the Clause is more sensible and realistic: namely, that the witness should be a person who, by his qualifications, knowledge or experience, is competent to give expert evidence. The Clause provides for a requirement to give notice to one's opponents of the intention to prove a finding of foreign law. The general effect of the Clause is that, if it is passed into law, it will become much simpler and easier to prove questions of foreign law.

Mr. Percival: Can my hon. Friend tell us what is meant by lines 2 and 3 on page 4 of the Bill which refer to a person
who is suitably qualified…on account of his knowledge or experience…competent to give expert evidence"?
Surely it means that before evidence can be admitted somebody must decide whether the person whose evidence is tendered
is suitably qualified to do so on account of his knowledge or experience".
What have the promoters in mind in putting forward that wording?

Mr. McLaren: The court would begin by interrogating the witness as to his qualifications and would discover whether the expert was a member of the bar of the foreign country or whether he had academic qualifications as a professor in a university. The latter point provides the key. The old rule was that a person had to be qualified to practise. The new rule will apply also to a person who is not a practitioner but who has expert academic knowledge of the law concerned. I hope that that is a sufficient

answer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival).

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I support the Clause entirely. It will make an extremely useful contribution to simplifying our proceedings and to the saving of cost. I want to raise two points on it.
First, I could have wished that the Clause and the recommendation had gone a little further. The evidence to be allowed will not necessarily be conclusive; it will be capable of rebuttal. Therefore, one might have thought that it should be possible to go direct to the source of the law concerned and cite the authorities of the country concerned. One is bound by the Clause to give warning to the other side of the means by which one produces written or expert evidence Therefore, if there were any disagreement about the authority referred to, it would be possible for the other side to call evidence to rebut it. I should have thought that that extension would involve even greater saving of time and expense in many cases in which an expert witness, whether expert under the old régime or under the new régime, was called to say what was in a foreign authority or statute.
Secondly, I realise that this is a Civil Evidence Bill and it is no doubt for that reason that this provision relates only to civil proceedings. It appears, however, to create an anomaly, because when it comes to citations one can cite findings in criminal as well as civil proceedings. We are therefore creating a different régime for civil proceedings from the régime for criminal proceedings, although we recognise that findings of foreign law are equally effective, whether in civil or criminal proceedings. I appreciate that within the confines of a Civil Evidence Bill one cannot alter the criminal law, but thought might be given to this point for the future.

Mr. Stanbrook: It is curious that the Law Reform Committee accepted the idea that evidence of foreign law need not be given by someone who was a professionally qualified lawyer in the country concerned. The door is thereby opened to all sorts of abuses, subject only to the judge who has to satisfy himself that the individual concerned
is suitably qualified…on account of his knowledge or experience


in the law. This provision might well lead to great difficulties.
At one time I had the privilege of serving Her Majesty as a member of the Colonial Administrative Service in Nigeria and I knew something about native law and custom there. The provisions on marriage and divorce among Nigerians were and still are of relevance to courts in this country, and it is necessary for someone who has been called to the bar of Nigeria to say whether a document is prima facie a document of marriage or divorce between the parties.
No doubt under this Clause, had I still been serving in my former capacity in Nigeria, I should be qualified to give evidence on the acceptability of a certificate. I am not now so qualified not merely because of the length of time since I was there but because I was never a member of the bar of Nigeria. However, when one considers the numbers of scraps of paper on which marriages and divorces under Nigerian native law and custom are recorded, one can imagine that there will be a great deal of dispute and contention on whether a document produced before a court is acceptable.
The Clause does not provide adequate safeguards against fraud. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren) referred to the point which arises under subsection (2) about any question of foreign law which has been determined by an English court being a matter of judicial recognition. Foreign law is not static any more than ours is, the position might change by the time an English court was required to give judicial recognition of a previous decision. How will we get over that problem without calling a fresh expert on the law of that foreign country?
That leads me to make this suggestion. Why should we not establish some sort of internationally recognised form of obtaining an authoritative statement of foreign law from the judicature or appropriate legal authorities of the countries concerned? In this respect, as in some other respects, Islamic countries order things better than we do. They have the institution of the mufti, whose job is not to be a judge but to give authoritative expressions of opinion. It might be possible, through international diplomatic channels, for questions of this kind to

to be settled in the form of a certificate in the country concerned. Nowadays, communications being as simple and expeditious as they are, this would not be a difficult process but would assist greatly in establishing these points.

3.0 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: When my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) began his observations, I confess that I was beginning to lose a degree of faith in his reputation as a zealously reforming character. When he was saying that he found the Clause "somewhat curious," I was beginning to find his anxieties about the activities of fraudulent characters in almost every context of the civil law somewhat curious.
I was exhilarated by the note on which my hon. Friend closed his remarks, when he suggested the possibility of a system whereby questions of foreign law might be disposed of by the exchange internationally of certificates from sources of authority in various countries.
This bears on the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), who suggested that these provisions did not go far enough in enabling our courts to look at foreign authorities. However, I think that that suggestion may go further than would make sense if one were to allow our courts to go roaming at large in pursuit of foreign law among foreign countries.
I welcome the citation of Commonwealth reports as matters of persuasive authority, but to go beyond that might be to run the risk, as my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington pointed out, of our courts reaching a conclusion that would be manifestly wrong to some foreign lawyer who was aware that the decision in question had been overturned on appeal.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: As the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware, it is open to either side to dispute such a matter under the Clause. It seems odd that one can cite American reports, for example, and show what the law of this country is or should be, but that one cannot cite them to show what American law is.

The Solicitor-General: That is precisely the point, and I think the hon.


and learned Gentleman has led himself astray because the state of foreign law is, except where otherwise provided, a matter of fact; one can cite American reports to see the kind of arguments that commend themselves to American courts, which we may or may not like to "buy" in our courts. There is no reason why one should not look at this matter with a view to seeing whether this process can be improved from the point of view of the provisions contained in this Measure.
The suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington for international certification on questions of foreign law is, I believe, under consideration at the Council of Europe in the course of a convention which has not yet been finalised. It is clear, therefore, that there is considerable point in what my hon. Friend said.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) asked about the use of the phrase:
who is suitably qualified to do so on account of his knowledge or experience".
I commented on this earlier and explained that in every instance, except that of foreign law, the rule has hitherto been that it is for the judge to decide to what extent and on what matters an expert is qualified to give evidence.
In the case of experts on foreign law, there has been a different pattern, dating back to1850. It is to the effect that only someone who has practised or is entitled to practise in the courts of the foreign country concerned is entitled to give evidence on foreign law. Even that antique law has been diminishing as a result of what some people would regard as some rather elderly cases—what lawyers would describe as "more recent cases"—dating between 1889 and 1910, certainly well before my time.
It is nevertheless the case that in those more recent cases it had been held that one could get evidence of foreign law from a rather splendid list of characters—including a governor-general, an embassy official and, in one case, the Reader in Roman Dutch law in the Council of Legal Education. This march, which seemed to have stopped some 60 years ago, has been accelerated rather dramatically by the Clause, because it is for the judge to decide whether the person is or is not suitably qualified on

account of experience or knowledge. There is no magic in entitlement to practise, but the judge has to be satisfied in that other respect.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

INTERPRETATION, APPLICATION TO ARBITRATIONS ETC. AND SAVINGS

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. McLaren: The Clause merely defines "civil proceedings" and "court". The test of civil proceedings is whether they are proceedings in which the strict rules of evidence apply. Thus, arbitrations and references would be included, but not any form of criminal proceedings.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

SHORT TITLE, EXTENT AND COMMENCEMENT

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. McLaren: The Clause merely deals with the Bill's Short Title, extent and commencement. The Bill is not to extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland. The Scottish law of evidence is being considered by the Scottish Law Commission.
It is proposed that the Bill should come into force on 1st January next, which would be a convenient date allowing the profession sufficient time to become familiar with the provisions.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

3.9 p.m.

Mr. McLaren: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
As we have been through the Bill in detail already in Committee it is not necessary for me to say much now.


My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General said in passing that it was in 1964 that the Lord Chancellor asked the Law Reform Commission to review the law of evidence in civil cases. The Commission did so to some effect: its first three reports have already been implemented by the Civil Evidence Act, 1968. Those were reports about hearsay evidence in civil proceedings, and about estoppal and privilege. In this Bill we are dealing with the fourth report, which is about evidence of opinion and expert evidence. Although we have had to discuss today a great deal of technical material, the golden thread running through the Bill is that the intention is to simplify proceedings in the higher civil courts, and save time and expense.
The Bill follows closely the draft Bill which was attached to the Committee's report. In Committee of the whole House we canvassed the difference of opinion in the Committee's membership about the compulsory disclosure and exchange of reports, and we need not go over that ground again. At the end of the day we shall have to rely to a large extent on the common sense and experience of the Masters of the Queen's Bench Division. They are very experienced in deciding the points which will come up on the summons for directions. They will retain their discretion, unfettered, to order or not to order compulsory disclosure in accordance with the circumstances of individual cases.
I confidently believe that the Bill will make civil litigation speedier, simpler and more economical. I therefore hope that the House will allow the Bill to pass, with an expression of our thanks to the Law Reform Committee for the valuable work it has done in this rather technical field. I also thank hon. Members in all parts of the House for all the contributions they have made today in our discussions in Committee.

3.12 p.m.

Mr. Percy Grieve: I came into the Chamber very late today and, unfortunately, was not here for the earlier stages of the Bill. I came straight from the courts. As a legal practitioner—I know that I speak for many legal practitioners who have considered this matter

—I give an unreserved welcome to the Bill.
I welcome particularly the provisions with regard to expert evidence. Although times have changed and there have been changes in procedure with regard to expert evidence, for far too long when cases have ultimately come to trial, particularly in injury cases involving medical evidence on two sides, there has tended to be a conflict between experts which in the end turns out not to be a conflict, with each side relying on nuances in medical reports, which might well have been resolved if the doctors on both sides had been able to consult.
The Bill does not provide for that, but it goes a long way towards it because, under the provisions with regard to expert evidence, if the reports of expert witnesses are exchanged, both sides can see whether there are any minor differences between them. This should tend towards the settlement of more cases out of court and to the speedier decision of cases when they come to court. I believe that this will be of great assistance in litigation.
I completely endorse what my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General said earlier about Clause 4, the provisions of which will greatly assist the administration of justice, particularly at a time when we are on the threshold of entering the European Economic Community and when it is to be expected that there will be much more commercial contact with countries in Western Europe so that our courts more frequently than in the past will have to consider matters of foreign law.

3.15 p.m.

Mr. Stanbrook: I am sorry that I cannot join in the welcome to the Bill. Until now the law of evidence has guarded against four objectionable features—hearsay evidence, compulsory disclosure, opinion evidence by experts and opinion evidence by laymen. The Bill introduces all four of those features and gives them legal sanction in the future. That is enough to ensure that the Bill should perhaps be looked at with great care. Indeed, in my submission it should not be passed at all.
We should beware of overloading out trial system with rules ostensibly designed


to speed up the process of justice but which are produced at the expense of its quality. Our legal system is now clogged up, rather like the forms of the Queen's Bench before the evolution of Chancery proceedings and the application of the rules of equity. In those days if one could not bring oneself within the forms there was no remedy. It was only by the operation of the good offices of the Lord Chancellor acting as the King's conscience that it was possible for the ordinary person, who was unable to get his justice because of being so entangled by Queen's Bench rules, to get justice at all in the end.
It seems to me that the Bill is a perfect example of the legal situation that we have reached in this country and that we need a similar reform today. We have a case of the Lord Chancellor, perhaps through the Law Reform Committee, allowing many desirable and sometimes rather undesirable improvements to procedures to take place while ignoring what is perhaps the fundamental problem of our system in which the courts are being ignored in the resolution of so many disputes between the community and individuals and between individuals and individuals.
In the absence of a system of administrative law and courts to enforce it, which we badly need, we have been driven to temporary expedients. We have been driven to a device called the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, who is no more than a big bureaucrat keeping a watch over other bureaucrats—a highly unsatisfactory method of investigation and redress of grievances because it does not appear to the average person with a grievance that his dispute or grievance has had a fair hearing. He understands a fair hearing to be a trial in open court with publicity and examination of witnesses. The English legal system should be the bulwark of our liberty. Unfortunately it is being increasingly elbowed out of the field of the settlement of dispute between citizens and authority, and increasingly it has been throttled by rules like those in this Bill imposed in the name of efficiency.
I should like to emphasise that too great an emphasis should not be placed upon what is helpful to judges. It seems to me that that is one of the major points made in the Report of the Law Reform

Committee which gave rise to the Bill. The public interest is the dominant consideration. The question whether the system of law should be changed or made in the interests of judges or professional experts or their professional institutions is irrelevant beside the public interest. In the cut and thrust of a trial, in evidence brought out by the adversary system, lies our lifeblood. If we restrict this, as we are restricting it by the Bill—with provision for written evidence and hearsay evidence—we are losing something precious to our way of life.
There are, of course, problems. The Lord Chancellor and his predecessors are known sometimes as reforming Chancellors. I wish, however, that they would give more attention to the application of the court process to more of the problems which confront us in modern life, and more attention to the tendency—a tendency implicit in the present Bill—to elbow out the courts from modern judicial processes.
We want improvements today to our trial and legal system not only in the interests of judges, not only in the interests of experts and their professional bodies, but in the interests of all and especially of the man in the street, who is becoming increasingly isolated from authority by the very tendency to ignore him in the interests of efficiency.
That is why my objections to the Bill, and the objections voiced in the Minority Report of the Law Reform Committee, are of fundamental importance and ought not, I submit, to be disregarded by the House.

3.21 p.m.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I shall be brief, especially as I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Robert Edwards) has been waiting patiently with an important Bill which he wishes to put to the House.
I cannot regard this Bill as sapping at the foundations of justice, as apparently the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) believes it does. It makes a modest liberalisation of our procedures, which I welcome. Like the Solicitor-General I feel that it is a modest Measure, and we could go a great deal further than we have.
When I think of certain courts in which the procedure is far more liberal


than that which applies generally, and when I think that laymen, planning inspectors and the like, dealing with matters which may involve millions of pounds, are entrusted with the duty of deciding upon the weight of evidence without all the panoply of the rules of evidence imposed upon our courts, I wonder whether the courts restrict themselves unnecessarily by the rules which we are but slowly and gradually modifying.
However, we are slowly and gradually modifying the rules. We are taking a further step in the Bill. I welcome it and I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren) on introducing it.

3.23 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I concur in what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) and I join in the gratitude which the House feels towards my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren)—I have already expressed my gratitude to the Law Reform Committee—for having brought the Bill before the House. I am prompted to say a little more at this stage, however, by the further observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook).
I was glad to note what my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington said about the need for us to concentrate on the continued improvement of our system of administrative law. He was critical to some extent of the rôle of the Parliamentary Commissioner, but I think he supported the general proposition that we must ensure that our procedures are such that our legal system serves the citizen and is as closely in touch with him as possible.
I am provoked to further comment by the thought that my hon. Friend's continued lack of enthusiasm for the Bill—to put it no higher—which contrasted so much with the warm welcome expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve), must be based on a misunderstanding of what it is about. The Bill does not make

changes in the interests of judges or of experts—some category of dehydrated characters who have nothing to do with the public. The changes are being made in the interests of the public. The Bill does not tend to elbow the courts or the judges out.
The truth is that, in so far as our judicial process and our courts are neglected at the moment, this may well be due to our being slow rather than sufficiently speedy in making changes and reforms of this kind. The Bill will help to make the legal shop more attractive.
The matters which the Bill contains are not, I suggest, to be criticised as my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington criticised them. We are admitting the opinion and evidence of experts and laymen. In doing that we are doing no more than recognising that, and lawyers and judges have struggled for years to keep it out. We have told witnesses that they must not voice their opinion but must confine themselves to the facts, and by acknowledging that that kind of evidence should now be admissible we are making an honest woman of the law. By providing for the admissibility of hearsay evidence we are doing that still, subject to the consent of the parties. The one significant change we are making is the provision for compulsory disclosure, but that too is subject to many safeguards.
I suspect that if the man in the street were invited to consider the matters we have been discussing, he would conclude that our legal system still too much resembles those games we used to play in the nursery—Dover Patrol, l'Attaque, Tri-tactics or even the every simple game of Jutland—the essence of which is that we did not know what was happening on the other side of the hill. This has not always contributed to clarity, celerity and justice in the proceedings of our courts.
If it does not tear down the veil the Bill will edge it slightly sideways in ways which will help citizens and parties to get justice from the courts, and for that reason it is to be welcomed.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

CARE OF THE ELDERLY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.28 p.m.

Mr. Robert Edwards: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill does not deal with the whole question of retirement pension but concentrates on the question of welfare. Before dealing with these points, however, may I express my delight that two hon. Members this afternoon were successful in getting their Bills towards the Statute Book. I hope I shall be as fortunate, but I have my doubts.
The other day I was reading a book translated from the French about old people. It contained a story about a French farmer, a very materialistic man, who, when his father was old and feeble and had no contribution to make to the work on the farm, dismissed him from the family. The poor old man had to live among the cows and took his meals from a wooden trough. This went on for some time until the farmer saw his two children making a wooden trough. He asked them what they were making and the boy said "We are making a wooden trough for you, Dad, for when you are too old to work on the farm." The farmer soon had his father back in the community of the home because he saw in the treatment he meted out to his old and feeble father, who was full of pain and weakness, his own future.
It also reminds me of the story of Buddha when he was a young prince. He was confined to his father's family, and on one of the rare occasions when he escaped from the palace he met an old and crippled man. The man was full of pain and weariness, and Buddha said that the treatment of this old man was the pity of the world and that in that old man he saw his future.
The facilities that we create today for our 8 million elderly citizens are, with some limitations, the facilities that we create for ourselves. They are not for us personally, because we are fortunate in our society, but for the overwhelming majority of elderly people in retirement who live in poverty and often loneliness.
This modest Bill is about such people. It looks at the problem of what will

happen as the number of retired people increases until such people comprise the greater part of our population. Today 20 per cent. of our producing population is retired. By 1980 40 per cent. of the producers in our society will be retired. This will create new social and economic problems for the country.

Mr. Timothy Raison: I am interested in the word "producer". Does the hon. Gentleman mean people actually producing or people capable of producing if everyone above the age of 16 had a job?

Mr. Edwards: That is the very point to which I was coming. I welcome the intervention. In our society we need the accumulated knowledge and experience of those people whom we are losing because of our arbitrary method of retirement. The retirement age should be flexible. The Bill establishes facilities so that there may be early retirement in the heavy industries where there is high unemployment, where people are weary of work and want to be free from discipline, and so that those who have great skills and are physically and mentally fit may continue their work because society needs them and they want to work for society.
It is a shattering blow for a skilled man suddenly to realise that he has to retire. His whole world falls apart. It is a break with the industrial environment which is often his social environment and, certainly on this side of the House, his political environment. He leaves and receives a gold watch and, if he is fortunate, a little cheque. He goes home to the loneliness which plagues the old people of this country even more than poverty.
A special Government Department is needed to co-ordinate the work being done so magnificently for the care of the elderly. The young volunteers in my constituency made a survey in one ward and discovered that about 20 per cent. of the old people interviewed had no understanding of their rights. Many were too independent even to claim them, but a high percentage did not even know what those rights were. There is something wrong with our communications. We need specialised offices to convey this information to those in need.
The survey also proved that about 20 per cent. of those interviewed owned their


own homes. There are over 1 million old people living in their own homes in retirement. Some of the retired people who own and live in their own houses are living in the worst squalor. That is a surprising thing to say, perhaps, but it is true. They still live in the houses they have lived in all their married life. Their children leave home, one of the two dies and the other is left alone in a big house too expensive to maintain in good repair and keep warm in winter. Such houses are some of the worst slums in the country, although they are owned by the old people living in them.
We need a lot more information about this problem. The Secretary of State the other day at a conference said that a very large percentage of those owning their own homes and in retirement had no knowledge of the sums they could get from local authorities to repair them. All too often, some cheap builder comes along with ladder, bucket of sand and bucket of water, and offers to do the roof or repair a window and the poor old folk have to pay a bill of hundreds of pounds when they could get assistance from the local authority with repairs.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): I am sure the hon. Gentleman is not alleging that the Government have not made great efforts to publicise these benefits. Large numbers of advertisements have appeared in newspapers, and, of course, a great deal of advice goes out from citizens' advice bureaux and other worthy bodies.

Mr. Edwards: I do not deny that a great deal has been done, but it is not enough. The weakness of our methods of education and propaganda is the lack of machinery to co-ordinate the work of all these institutions. That is why I suggest a special Department dealing with the problems of the elderly. One of its functions would be to see that a record was kept in each locality of the retired people, who would be visited and given the information they need about repairs and the grants they could get and all the other facilities which exist locally and which hundreds of thousands of them are not enjoying.
Hundreds of thousands of our old people are in hospitals being treated as chronically sick. They are in institutions

and will die there unless something is done. They should be at home among their own people. They should be living in the community. They should not have to die in an institution. Why are they there? It is because we have no medical services capable of visiting them regularly in their own homes. We should create these facilities. It will cost money, of course, but we are a very rich country.
We have £11,800 million of investments abroad, bringing in about £800 million a year. This massive asset was created by the generation now retired. It was their industrial intelligence, their skill, their sweat and their labour which created this great mountain of wealth, which they never properly shared. It was an accumulation partly paid for by unpaid wages, unpaid pensions and high consumer prices. But I do not want to be too controversial on the economics of a modest Bill of this nature, and I must not let my thoughts flow too freely. I merely say that some machinery should be established to enable old people who are treated in our hospitals as chronically sick to be brought home among their own folk. If there are facilities for regular home treatment, there will be no necessity for them to die in institutions.
There are about 250,000 dedicated sons and daughters and daughters-in-law and sons-in-law looking after retired, chronically sick people in their own homes. They are fine, dedicated people who need some relief from the tension and drudgery of looking after aged sick parents. Local authorities should be obliged to establish hostel facilities so that for at least three weeks a year these fine people would be able to have a holiday.
That is not an enormous demand. There is a demand in the country that those looking after their own aged parents should receive an income. I am suggesting not that, but merely that facilities should be created to give them at least some relief from the dedicated responsibilities that they have so willingly accepted.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I do not wish to prolong the hon. Gentleman's speech for him, but the Bill has some important provisions, particularly about the age of retirement, that I should like him to discuss more fully.

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening, because I dealt with that problem earlier. I said that unless we made retirement more flexible we should be faced with enormous economic and social problems. I want us to be flexible in both ways. In the heavy industries such as mining and chemicals and heavy engineering, where the work is heavy men and women reaching retirement age may not be able to make a useful contribution and may wish to retire, retirement age should be lowered on the understanding that they would get a pension and that retirement would not interfere with their industrial pension rights. British industry is already doing this extensively in order to cushion redundancy. Earlier retirement is being encouraged and industrial pensions are being paid.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: I am sympathetic to the aims of the Bill in many ways, but I am worried about contracts of employment. It is suggested that in future it should be unlawful for a contract of employment to contain a clause providing that employment will come to an end when a person reaches retirement age. It raises considerable legal problems. Would the hon. Gentleman say something about those provisions?

Mr. Edwards: This is not a harsh provision. It challenges the right of an employer to refuse a man continued employment, when he is capable mentally and physically of continuing that employment, without proper consideration of that man's special problems. If the language does not meet the legal requirements, it could be amended in Committee.

Mr. Raison: Mr. Raison rose—

Mr. Edwards: I did not intend to speak more than briefly so that one or two other hon. Members could participate. I was meeting the Minister's request for more information about the Bill's provisions for retirement. I was arguing that in heavy industries, where there is a demand for early retirement, it should be allowed, but that there was no point in having early retirement unless there was some security, unless a man or a woman had an income permitting a physical hold on life. It is difficult for the overwhelming majority of retired

people to talk about serenity in old age and liberty and freedom and leisure, for leisure and freedom are meaningless unless there are the means to enjoy the leisure and take advantage of the freedom.
I suggest that in light industry, clerical work, office work and some light engineering work, where there is a shortage of skilled labour—there is a shortage in many of these types of employment—retirement should not be automatic at 60 years of age for women and 65 for men. If they are mentally and physically fit they should be allowed to continue their employment. I do not suggest that they should be employed full-time, but their retirement should be staggered, so that their wisdom and accumulated knowledge is still available to industry if their employers believe that their kind of skill and knowledge is required.
I must bring my remarks to a close. I hope that this modest Bill will receive sympathetic consideration, as did the two Bills that the House has dealt with previously today. I hope that in this atmosphere of good will and sweet reasonableness the same will apply to this Bill.

3.46 p.m.

Mr. Michael Grylls: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Robert Edwards) on introducing the Bill. There is no doubt that the thought, hope and ambition that he has put into the attempt to improve the lot of the elderly are close to our hearts. Any doubts that I have are focused on the question whether there is need for a separate Bill for the elderly as a body of people. What worries me slightly is the reference to the creation of a public department to assist elderly persons and
to extend and improve the services provided by local authorities for elderly persons.
I should have thought that it would be much better to try to integrate the social services for our people in one Department rather than cast off the elderly into a separate organisation. That could be very unwise for the future.
I have always taken the strongest exception to compartmentalising people, whether they be old, young or middle-aged. The problem nowadays is that people are too often divided up. I should


like to see the young working with the elderly, and not have the elderly dealt with in their own department. I hope that moves to help the elderly will proceed by way of integration, either in age groups or in sections of society.
Many of us will be aware of the great work done by organisations such as Task Force. The hon. Member for Bilston mentioned the youth volunteers and the wonderful work that they do in visiting the elderly. I think particularly of the Task Force organisation in London, under which young people "adopt" elderly persons and regularly visit them once a week on their way to work or coming home from work. I want to encourage that kind of social work.
Some of the Bill's proposals would have a rather divisive effect which would not be in the best interests of the elderly. We are concerned to do what we can for the older people. Our endeavour under the social services should be to try to build up community care for all people—whether handicapped young people or elderly people—who are unable to care for themselves. Therefore we should look at the position in that light.
I am also worried about there not being any retirement age in Clause 6(1). With no disrespect to elderly people in general, I think that this could turn out to be a geriatrics charter. One can imagine the effect on industry and commerce. Not only would it prevent people having any retirement, but it would frustrate those lower down who wished to work their way up and improve their positions. I think it is desirable that there should be a retirement age. I believe that Clause 6 is unduly restrictive and would cause a great deal of trouble. I should have thought that, above all, many Members of Parliament would say that there should be a retirement age for us. I am sure that when the time comes we would welcome it.
Instead of getting hold of an individual Bill like this and slotting elderly people into one organisation, our attention for the good of the elderly, would be better focussed on expanding the services we have which are so good—meals on wheels, home helps and the integration of young people to play their part in helping the elderly. Health visitors are

very important in that they play a useful part in helping the elderly.
I return to where I started by sincerely congratulating the hon. Member for Bilston on the thought and the principle involved in introducing the Bill. My doubts are whether this is the best way of helping the elderly. Our attention should be focussed on extending the existing services within our general social services. In that way we would, in the long run, do a better job for the people we all want to try to help.

3.52 p.m.

Mr. Timothy Raison: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey (Mr. Grylls), I congratulate the hon. Member Bilston (Mr. Robert Edwards) on introducing the Bill. However, I share some of the doubts whether this is the most effective way of bringing help to older people. All Members of Parliament to whom I have spoken take the view that, judged by their "surgeries" and correspondence, the social problems of old people today are greater than those of any other group.
We have heard from organisations like the Child Poverty Action Group a good deal about problems among families. I do not think anybody would dispute that they exist. My experience is that the real or the worst hardship tends to be found among people who nowadays are referred to by the inelegant phrase "senior citizens".
I do not think anybody would doubt the Tightness of concern on our part for the elderly. We as politicians can justly claim to have done a number of useful things for the elderly since we came to power. We have raised pensions and brought in the annual review of pensions which is of great importance. We have introduced the special supplement for pensioners over 80. Although it is a small sum of money, it is of importance in that it recognises that the truly very old have different problems from people we nominally call old simply because they have retired. We all know people of 60 and 65 who are by no means old in the real sense of the word. They simply happen to have reached the statutory age at which retirement pension is paid. We have also brought forward other financial measures.
When introducing the Bill, the hon. Gentleman fairly said that in many cases


the problem is not one of finance. The real problems old people face are not so much financial as those of loneliness and usefulness. Old people like to feel that they have something to contribute to society and that society provides the outlets they want if they are to be able to make this contribution. We all know that boredom and the feeling that one does not particularly matter are the real scourge of many old people.
Old people's homes, which are often remarkably good in the sense that they are well run, clean, tidy, well ordered and provide everything one wants in terms of creature comforts, seem to have an emptiness about them which can be very dispiriting. I recall one small but significant point when a doctor said that the degree of incontinence among old people who were entirely looked after was very much greater than among old people who had to care for themselves. In other words, they can reach a stage where there is no apparent purpose in life and they simply give up coping with the most basic necessities or actions of everyday life. I therefore accept that the subject matter of the Bill is of great importance and I am sure it will continue to occupy our time as more of our people pass into the retirement age sector.
My reservations about the Bill concern its details and whether it is designed and calculated to meet the problems which the hon. Member for Bilston accurately set out. My hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey made a very strong general point about the undesirability of setting up separate departments. I am sure he is right in saying that we should not start from the premise that we need special and separate organisations, because that would tend to cut off old people from the rest of society when presumably the object of the exercise is exactly the reverse.
There is an underlying fallacy about the Bill in that respect, and I very much doubt whether having a department for the care of the elderly, as is proposed in Clause 1, would be of any value. People manning the employment services would be inclined to categorise jobs into those suitable for the general run of people and those suitable for the old. Two registers of jobs would be kept,

one a general register and the other an old persons register. I cannot believe that the hon. Member for Bilston would think that desirable. Indeed, in Clause 6 he seeks to do the opposite. I have therefore considerable reservations about Clause 1.
The principle in Clause 2 that local authorities should consider the housing needs of old people in their districts is sound. The better local authorities—the great majority of them—do this already. I am aware from my experience in local government that a good deal of attention is paid to this matter. The latter part of the Clause poses some difficulties by seeking to distinguish between houses for old people and houses for the rest of the community. I know that local authorities build certain houses very much with old people in mind. That is not unreasonable. Hardship could be caused by the general notion that there is one sort of house for people when they are young or in middle life and another sort when they are old. Often old people wish to remain in the houses in which they have lived all their lives. Some people argue that there is a wasteful use of housing accommodation because old couples still have three-bedroom or four-bedroom flats or houses. There is a psychological risk in the approach which seems to be implicit in Clause 2.
Clause 3 is entirely sound in its intentions. Clause 4 is right in its intentions. It is simply a question whether the services called for in Clause 4 are already being effectively provided. The Government have recently announced the bringing into force of the 1968 Act. I should have thought that we were moving fairly fast in the right direction. I accept Clause 4. Clause 5 is reasonable.
Clause 6 is undoubtedly the controversial Clause, dealing with the notion that employers should not be prevented from offering jobs to people simply on the ground that they are too old. It seeks to prevent employers terminating jobs on the ground that employers are too old. At present an employer can say "You have reached the age of 65 and you will have to retire." Under this proposal an employer would have to say "We are retiring you not because you are too old but because you are no longer capable." Much greater hardship is involved when a person aged 65 is told that he is no


longer capable of performing his job than in telling him that, regrettably, he has reached the company's retiring age or the statutory retirement age and he can no longer remain in employment.
In that respect, Clause 6 would cause considerable harm. My legal friends—

It being Four o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday next.

RIGHTS OF PATIENTS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (UNIT PRICING) BILL

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

SOLICITORS (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

CONTROL OF PERSONAL INFORMATION BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [21st April].

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate further adjourned till Friday next.

OWNER-OCCUPATION (HELP FOR PRIVATE LANDLORDS' TEN- ANTS TO PURCHASE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

ENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) ACT 1962 AMENDMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

LEGAL AID AND ADVICE (LOCAL LEGAL CENTRES) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

PASSENGER FARES (LONDON) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

IMPORTS (MARKING OF ORIGIN) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

POWER-BOATS (REGULATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

INLAND WATERWAYS (IMPROVEMENT OF NAVIGATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

STUDENT UNIONS (REGISTRATION) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [25th February].

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate further adjourned till Friday next.

ABOLITION OF GAZUMPING AND KINDRED PRACTICES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

MEDICAL SERVICES (REFERRAL) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

TRANSPLANTS OF HUMAN ORGANS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [28th January].

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate further adjourned till Friday next.

CIGARETTES (PROHIBITION OF ADVERTISING) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

PROTECTION OF OTTERS (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

PUBLIC ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

DEFECTIVE PREMISES BILL

Resolved,
That Standing Committee C be discharged from considering the Defective Premises Bill and that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Richard.]

Committee upon Friday next.

Adjournment

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE ENVIRONMENT

4.4 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I wish to bring to the attention of the House the subject of the impact of our present policies on our natural resources and the environment. This is a large question to raise on a Friday afternoon because it amounts to little less than the question whether mankind can survive, a proposition on which doubt must be cast.
It is said to be fashionable to discuss this subject and to talk about ecology and the environment. The fact that it is fashionable should not deter us from assessing the real merits of the matter, bearing in mind that fashionable questions can be very relevant. I believe that it was fashionable to discuss the dangers of war breaking out in 1939. The fact that it was a fashionable and, therefore, derided issue did not make it any the less relevant.
There has been a great deal of discussion in the Press over the last 18 months or two years about the impact of population growth, economic growth and pollution on the prospects of the survival of the human race. More and more people are becoming aware that some of the courses we are pursuing, or are allowing to be pursued, are creating a very dangerous situation for mankind. As yet, however, there has not, as far as I know, been any discussion of the subject in Parliament, although there were a couple of speeches in the debate on the principle of our entry into Europe.
Although to raise the subject on a Friday in an empty House——

Mr. Andrew Faulds: It is not empty.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I apologise to my hon. Friend and any other hon. Members. To raise the subject in a partially empty House on a Friday afternoon may seem to treat it without adequate respect, but I hope that today we shall at least start the discussion, and that further discussion will follow.
It was said in an article in The Times a few weeks ago that ecology seems to be discussed, when it is discussed at all, between the extreme pessimists who think that we have only 25 years left to live and the extreme optimists who think that we may have as many as 50 years left to go. When we look at how the experts approach the subject, we find very few real optimists who can see a prospect of our continuing our present policies and ways of life for more than half way through the next century.
The trouble is that the vast majority of people are not prepared to look at where we are going, and at the impact of what we do on our prospects of survival. For a very long time now we have seen

living standards rising because of economic growth and the economic policies we are pursuing. The effects have been obviously visibly good, but good only for a minority—for the developed countries and for the present generation. We have to think of our children's generation and their children's generation. It is not only the present effect of what we do now. The question is whether what we do now will provide the possibility of survival.
It is obvious that one cannot pursue a policy of indefinite growth in a world whose resources are finite, without ultimately running out of resources. Many discussions have taken place recently. The optimists have poured scorn on some of the figures put forward by those who take a more gloomy view. We have had "Blueprint for Survival", and the arguments of that publication scoffed at in Nature. We have had Professor Meadows' book, "The Limits to Growth", and his arguments, if not exactly scoffed at, seriously disputed by Dr. Jeremy Bray, a member of my own party and former hon. Member for Middles rough, West.
But even looking at the arguments advanced by the optimists, taking into account all their scorn about attempting to provide precise mathematical models of what will happen, taking into account the fact that all the estimates made of world population growth have varied from year to year—and as those estimates are projections from the 1960s to the year 2000 and later there must be variations—all the figures that anyone who knows about the subject has prepared predict a very substantial increase in world population.
Dr. Jeremy Bray, who is counted an extreme optimist in this context, estimates that world population of the developing countries will have risen from its present figure of 2,500 million to 5,000 million by the year 2000, and that the population of the developed countries will have risen from its present figure of 1,000 million to 2,000 million, making by the turn of the century a world population of 7,000 million, nearly double what it is today. Dr. Jeremy Bray, taking the United Nations figures and projecting them, estimates that allowing for the changes for which we can hope—these are on the most optimistic estimates—there is a


probability that by the turn of the next century the population of the developing countries will have doubled yet again resulting in a world population of about 12,000 million.
Looking only 25 to 30 years ahead, we must expect that the world's population will be twice what it is now. As a consequence of this change, there will be a very acute shortage of land. This is something about which we can do practically nothing, because the main increase in the population between now and the end of the century will arise because the age of death will have been put back, and no one would wish to change that. We do, however, need to adopt policies which we hope will drastically reduce the birth rate in the years to come just to ensure that the population does not increase even faster than Dr. Bray estimated.
One of the major questions is whether the world can possibly produce sufficient food to avoid an absolute disaster, whether we shall have the fertilisers and the phosphates to enable us to feed the very rapidly increasing world population. The Observer discussion on "Spaceship Earth" consisted of an argument between an optimist and pessimist. The optimist—Dr. Borlaug—said that one of the greatest needs at the moment is fertiliser. Professor Borgstrom, the pessimist, maintained that the situation for fertilisers and the prospect of there being sufficient fertiliser to provide for the world's needs was limited at the outside to about 30 years. Unless we can find an alternative for the phosphates which we are rapidly washing to the bottom of the oceans, we we shall not have enough materials to enable the world to provide what it otherwise could do of the resources of the world.
Minerals are disappearing rapidly. One can have arguments as to the size of the need and the rate at which minerals are disappearing—for instance, whether our resources of petroleum oils are 30 years, 40 years, 50 years, or 20 years, whether our resources of natural gas are, as Professor Meadows estimates, 20 years or less, whether it is not true that tin and tungsten will disappear within the lifetime of nearly all of us present at this time. But, whatever the argument, no one disputes that resources

are finite and will ultimately be exhausted if we waste them.
As yet, we are doing very little to counteract all these developments. On the contrary we are expounding the advantages of economic growth. It is sometimes argued that for any one of us who enjoys a high living standard to say that we should reverse the trends, that we should seek to ensure that we do not have yet more rapid growth of the economy and that we do not have yet more rapid growth of the consumption of resources is, in effect, to say that we are pulling up the ladder behind us.
I do not believe that this is so. Although it is obviously prima facie the case that if we were to reverse the trends of economic growth now it would be the developing countries which would suffer, if we are to survive, and if indeed our children's generation or possibly our own generation is to survive, we shall have to move rapidly towards a completely different approach to the conduct of the world's economy.
The only circumstance in which we can expect to get the rest of the world, or indeed our own country, to accept that we should not expand our use of resources even further and that we should not go even further with economic growth is if we were in a situation of much greater equality than we are today. If we were able to say that everybody was sharing alike in prosperity and that everybody was getting a fair share of our resources, we could legitimately say that we were not going to expand the use of those resources even further.
I believe that the argument for equality both within Britain and between Britain and the world has become much stronger as a result of our awareness of the resources situation which is now increasingly being impressed upon us. We cannot say to the developing countries "You must have no more growth, but we will." That would be atrociously unfair. Such growth as there is must be concentrated upon those countries which are deprived at the present time.
Here I am embarking on even more controversial ground than I did in the early part of my speech, but I hope that we can agree that what is urgently needed is far greater concentration on the conservation of resources by fiscal


changes which will ensure that the polluter pays—and here I pay tribute to the Government for having done quite a lot in this direction. But pollution is only the first and most obvious, and possibly the least important, aspect of what I am discussing. Pollution destroys the environment and the capacity of the world to produce the food to sustain the ecological systems. That is something that we must check, and we must make sure that resources are provided to ensure that it is checked.
That, however, is only the first step. We must also take the fiscal measures to ensure that we do not waste natural resources, and do not allow those resources that we have to be used up or washed away at the bottom of the sea and become exhausted in the various ways which modern industry makes so easy and profitable. We must also ensure that jobs are found in order to keep the rapidly increasing population of the world in employment, in a situation in which it can economically survive without continuing the increasing use of natural resources.
It is already immensely difficult to maintain full employment in Britain. One of the measures that we can take to maintain full employment and to counteract the steady tendency towards an increase in the use of natural resources is a deliberate shift of emphasis in Government policy towards service industries rather than production industries. We need by fiscal and Government measures to encourage people to re-cycle bottles, to build more houses rather than more cars, to build durable things rather than non-durable ones, to provide hospital, educational and other services rather than provide more consumable goods which are not seriously affecting our ultimate living standards but are rapidly destroying the means of survival.

Mr. Faulds: Would my hon. Friend not agree that an answer that I had from the Ministry the other day was extremely depressing in this context? When I asked about the re-use of industrially damaged chemicals and solvents, the answer I got was that market forces would provide the answer. Does not my hon. Friend find this answer evasive of the responsibilities of any Government?

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Indeed, this is an argument that has been presented by many people—that as tin runs out, for example, it will become more expensive and we shall switch to a substitute. I think the Government must accept that it would be better if we started looking towards avoiding waste of resources now. Even if that argument were valid, which I do not accept—there cannot be an infinite number of substitutes for tin—we should ensure now that we do not use it all up. We should take measures now to ensure that we have car hire systems rather than car selling systems so that people may have a car to use for holidays and weekends rather than that everybody should own a car and that our entire economy should be based on the necessity for everybody to have a car.
We should be looking now for measures to enable us to switch to conservation—this would require Government intervention—and we should be looking for measures to enable us to preserve resources rather than destroy them. We should be looking for the development of service industries and labour-intensive industries rather than labour-saving industries. I realise that, prima facie, that may appear to be the argument of a twentieth-century Luddite, but, at the end of the cycle begun by the Industrial Revolution, I feel that we have reached a point where our natural resources are being damaged or diminished to an extent which requires us to think in terms of greater use of labour rather than greater and greater use of natural resources.
I have raised some very large questions. I have been able only to touch upon them, but I hope that the Minister will be able to say that Government policy is at least alive to these matters and that we shall see changes in policy—there must be policy changes by both parties here; it is not a party issue in that sense—to ensure that we have a better chance not only of surviving but of providing the real essentials of good living standards for future generations rather than the increased production of goods which do not always improve living standards in a situation in which people have no room or opportunity to enjoy them.

4.21 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): If he


has not tried to put all eternity into an hour-glass, the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) has sought to put the whole of ecology and the environment into a 16-minute speech. He must forgive me at the outset if, in the 12 or 13 minutes left to me to reply, I do not attempt to deal with all the questions of conservation, population, pollution, recycling and the rest which he raised. But I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is need for a serious and balanced debate at the highest political and intellectual levels about some of the highly emotive concepts of the world environment which now engage public attention.
Some of the questions which we should examine in the House are these. Is it right to hold the view that diseases, starvation and conflict will inevitably follow, fairly soon, on the pursuit of economic growth, or is it on the other hand right to hope that our various social, economic and political structures are strong and flexible enough to adapt themselves to the changes which will undoubtedly develop? Is there any compelling necessity for controls on world population, and, if so, how and by whom are those controls to be exercised?
These are matters which my right hon. Friend and I hope to be discussing with other Government representatives at the Stockholm conference, but they have been brought into prominence in this country by the publication recently of a quite remarkable document "Blueprint for Survival". This argues that continued exponential growth in human demand for natural resources cannot possibly be sustained and that, unless stabilisation occurs before resources become too depleted or competition for them becomes too acute, there is grave risk of a worldwide social breakdown. To avoid this consequence, the authors suggest that there is need, first, to minimise the disruption of ecological processes; second, to conserve materials and energy; third, to stabilise human populations; and fourth, to maintain within that context a social system with freedom of choice and enjoyment for the individual.
I need not emphasise that there is some dilemma between freedom of choice for the individual and the need for State direction if the other aims of minimising disruption and conserving materials are to be secured. But this dilemma is the

problem of all Governments and all free Parliaments—it is, indeed, what we are for.
Basic to the studies in the blueprint is the belief that five main elements—population, food production, industrialisation, pollution and the depletion of non-renewable resources—are all increasing exponentially. By putting together the five elements into one computer model, assuming certain relationships between them, and taking into account their exponential growth, those carrying out the studies have produced quite frightening predictions of the global problems with which mankind will be confronted over the next half century.
I also readily agree that the continued advance of science and technology must increase the ability of man to damage his habitat. That damage may vary from extermination of various world species to catastrophes like world-wide damage to plankton through contamination of the oceans, with the resultant destruction of fisheries and reduction in the conversion of carbon dioxide to carbon and oxygen. But with each scientific advance man is better able to see the results of his actions and if he is wise to combat them before they get out of hand. Our capacity to produce new substances is of course liable to run ahead of capacity to foresee their effects—this happened with DDT—but, on the other hand, the developed countries where those substances originated are now aware of the point and are devising protective mechanisms to operate in advance of serious damage.
The authors of the Blueprint have suggested a number of steps that they think necessary for this country. They propose a society with a stablised population, perhaps of 30 million in Great Britain, which would be organised in neighbourhoods of 500, represented in communities of 5,000, in regions of 500,000. It is argued that such a stable society would be to a large extent self-supporting and would make few demands for mobility because it would be socially self-contained. The individual would find satisfaction, and the mental and physical health of the community would be assured. I would be the last to argue with the authors in their attempt to postulate a stable society but the philosophy behind the proposals seems


to be of G. K. Chesterton on the one hand and birth control on the other.
This thesis takes it for granted that we could somehow return to this bucolic state if only we had the will. In fact the sort of life envisaged in such a society was only ever possible for a tiny minority, and even that minority depended on the existence of a much larger population, living on the brink of starvation.
The hard reality is—and surely it is nothing for us to be ashamed of—that it is only modern industry and modern technology and modern fertilisers—the very economic growth which so many affect to despise—which has made it possible for the mass of ordinary people to have anything like a decent standard of life in this island. The real alternative to modern pesticides and complex industrial processes and all their consequences is not happy country-dwellers living in pleasant cottages as Brueghel painted them. The only alternative is the sort of mass misery we associate with the Bengal famines.
In attempting, and it cannot be more than an attempt, to comment on some of the points the hon. Member has made I would like only to offer to the House one or two broad perspectives as the Government see them. The first is that, contrary to rumour, we are not in this country losing the battle to protect our environment. I would not say we are winning it, but we are more than holding our own.
Some pronouncements postulate that it is already too late, that we are blindly heading into an environmental apocalypse, that the insects will die, that the ice caps will melt and that we shall all either drown in sewage or choke to death on sulphur dioxide. I do not dismiss these projections; I want to find out more about them. I am not complacent because there are dangers and anxieties, and none of us has any excuse to sit back. The facts are that our air is generally cleaner, our rivers on the whole a good deal less polluted and our industrial effluent and toxic wastes, though very much greater in volume and vastly more complex in character, on the whole less dangerous and less offensive than

any of these things were 100 years, 50 years or even 10 years ago.
The second perspective I offer to the hon. Gentleman concerns the vexed question of growth on the one hand and a proper, indeed urgent, concern for the environment and the human condition on the other hand. If our population and pollution problem has become more acute though not necessarily more unmanageable in recent years, it is precisely because our rate of economic growth has been not too high but too low. For inadequate economic growth robs us of choice; it forces us to concentrate our limited resources so as to meet the demand for more, whether more houses, more schools or more help for spastic children. By doing so it deprives us of the means and opportunity to invest in something that is better. Far from saving the environment, economic stagnation can leave us insufficiently well breeched to protect it.
From my own experience in the Department when it comes to cleaning up rivers, reducing the number of slums or improving the condition of life, what we require are not fewer resources but more. Let no one imagine that the environment gains from a low rate of growth. The environment suffers along with all the rest. What we need is a new definition of the purpose of growth and the reasons for creating wealth.
That purpose will have more and more to do with the use of our increasing resources to build quietness into engines, to pour less and less toxic effluent into our rivers and seas and to pay the price—it will be a high one—of avoiding or clearing up industrial pollution as we go along.
My final point of perspective is directed more to those outside the House rather than those inside it who are passionately concerned about pollution but who sometimes do not stop to think of what is really involved. We know from our experience that fine words and grand generalisations cure no pollution. Nor for that matter does sweeping legislation. The job of doing what is needed to protect the environment instead of just talking about it nearly always comes down to the unglamorous details, to the public health inspector poking about in the cesspits and


the incinerators, to the alkali inspector measuring the number of grains of dust emitted from a factory chimney and to pressing ahead with the work of the committee dealing with back-siphonage in sewers.
When I first came to the Department I was surprised to find myself responsible for such bodies as the working party on the design of sewer pumps. I have learned that when we are talking about pollution these are the places where the action is. It is here, not in the headlines, that we win the battle to protect the environment. I say to those who on occasions press the panic button that if we use scare tactics too often we divert too large

a proportion of our limited and technical manpower away from the job of tackling the hard work.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having raised this wide subject and I shall study his remarks with interest. He will realise that in dealing with a subject so global—

The Question having been proposed after Four o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-six minutes to Five o'clock.